105
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
105 points (86.2% liked)
World News
32286 readers
729 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This is coming from Glenn Greenwald, a known Putin shill, so all this could mean is the efforts to maintain truth on Wikipedia, since Ruzzia and her allies worldwide (including the American Republican party, or at least the 'MAGA' portion) constantly seek to obfuscate the truth and alter articles critical of them, their positions, their narratives.
Now I'm not saying there isn't a shred of truth, there usually is with shills like Greenwald, so I'm sure the US and their allies are actively involved in doing something similar, but nobody lies like the current Ruzzian regime and their allies, their people are so misinformed and propagandized that they wouldn't know the truth if it smacked them over the head.
Some sources to back up my point:
https://gizmodo.com/wikipedia-russia-ukraine-propaganda-suspicious-edits-1849673060
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/russia-edits-mh17-wikipedia-article
https://www.iflscience.com/woman-writes-fake-russian-history-on-wikipedia-for-over-a-decade-before-being-caught-64245
https://www.new-east-archive.org/articles/show/2967/wikipedia-russian-government-edits
https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/wikipedia-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-edits-kyiv-kiev.html
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/01/1090279187/russia-wikipedia-fine
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/03/03/wikimedia-foundation-stands-with-communities-defending-free-knowledge/
https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/11/22973293/wikipedia-editor-russia-belarus-ukraine
Thank you for the sources. Greenwald is so far right and has gone so far off the deep end of conspiracy theory stuff that it really doesn't make sense to believe anything he says.
he's a journalist. if you don't like what he prints, you might ask yourself why.
Ok.
To assume the truth of something only based on profession or historical accomplishments is an appeal to authority fallacy.
Done.
"He's a journalist!" So?
"He once exposed this great story!" So?
Neither are actual arguments of the truth of current statements.
that's not what's happening here. i didn't say it's not true. i said he's a journalist. if you can disprove what he said, you should.
if you think he's not a journalist it's on you to provide a reason. he investigates and publishes news stories. he's a journalist.