Wikipedia is a mess
By - O_Barbosa
Wikipedia is notorious for removing truths that might be considered inconvenient. I updated Mike Loves page so everyone would know he played the butt trumpet and the powers that be undid my change.
Finally a worthy opponent, our battle will be legendary
Look up the Chernobyl disaster on Wikipedia. The death tolls on the Wikipedia article match those of Soviet propaganda at the time, putting it at less than 100.
Most independent estimates believe that number is at least 4 to 6 thousand at the bare minimum, more likely tens of thousands.
Misleading. Those are the deaths directly attributed to the blast trauma and to acute radiation syndrome. It says that there are "Varying estimates of increased mortality over subsequent decades", which is true. Literally right after that statement there is a hyperlink to another article where it clearly says:
"*long-term death estimates range from up to 4,000 for the most exposed people of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, to 16,000 in total for all those exposed on the entire continent of Europe.*"
It’s a nuclear meltdown. An explosion that kills 20 to 40 people is bad but not historical.
It made history because the radiation released was dozens of times more than the Hiroshima bomb. It nearly poisoned the drinking water of millions. Being near the building for more than an hour or two was a death sentence.
To say roughly 40 people died as a result is misleading.
It would be misleading if it stopped at "40 people died" and didn't elaborate further. But as I mentioned before, getting to the full figures above the immediate deaths on the same wikipedia article is not really difficult, and is at least made reasonably easy by the editors. So it's possibly misleading if you just take the number at face value and don't make the effort to actually check the full figures on the hyperlinked detailed page, but I wouldn't say it's intentionally misleading.
It's intentionally misleading to people who aren't fully literate.
At this point, I wish I was illiterate.
>To say roughly 40 people died as a result is misleading.
But it's true. Not complete, you add the known thyroid cancer deaths and you reach the number of almost 100. Those deaths would've been avoidable if the regime had KI pills distributed or instructed the population nearby to not consume fresh products for a few months, that's what the major failing of the authorities was.
Nothing else of importance happened, it's all just radiophobic hysteria without a scientific basis. The 4000-6000 premature deaths is an LNT estimation of low level radiation immediately downwind, a number which could never and won't ever be confirmed, and especially since LNT cannot be applied this way, it is wrong.
The scientists performing the estimate know this, but there is no "alternative" estimation that can be given other than "eh, probably zero or so", and LNT is the only known method. Still, it is known that LNT cannot be applied to the dose rates they applied it to, thus the estimate is complete nonsense.
Wikipedia is shite but this particular example isn't very representative.
Sorry to say but other than the massive socio-political turmoil it created, Chernobyl ain't much different than your run of the mill serious industrial accident. If it wasn't for radiophobia then indeed it would not be historical to such a degree.
P.S. regarding this:
>It’s a nuclear meltdown. An explosion that kills 20 to 40 people is bad but not historical.
Hat it just been a nuclear meltdown, the actual fatality count would probably be zero. Meltdown just means the fuel assemblies in the reactor melt. The problem at Chernobyl wasn't really the meltdown, it was the power excursion and explosion that happened right before the meltdown began, spreading highly radioactive material around the power plant grounds.
Nonsense. The explosion in Hiroshima killed thousand of people directly.
There was no nuclear explosion in Chernobyl. The power plant would just be gone in that case.
There was a normal explosion that opened the reactor and released radioactive particles. Then the reactor senf radiotion into the air.
The explosion itself was small.
I know. It was a conventional explosion. I never said the explosion was nuclear.
Wikipedia having white nationalism as bad and black nationalism and every other nationalism as good
Wikipedia doesn't make normative claims. So what you're doing is deciding that they made normative claims based on your interpretation of the facts they laid out.
Saying that one cannot subtly, or sometimes not even bothering with subtlety, try to influence your perception of facts by how they’re presented, is funny.
>The reason everybody hates you, on a personal level, is because what you are saying is so against reality that to believe what you are saying is to have been completely propagandized against reality that you literally just don't believe physical reality as it exists anymore.
I like to call it cultural gaslighting because it's an entire culture of people who make me feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I talk to them.
u/p314159i's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20.
Congratulations, u/p314159i! You have ranked up to Basket Ball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on.
Pills: smart centrist, commie, italy, return to prehistoric times, wall of text, historical connections, griller-with-theory, entireethnicgroupsarenowgone, homodarwinism, reality check, history, foreverpurge, fuck socdems
This is not only about Islam but many parts in Wikipedia. Good morning if you just realized that people fight on Wikipedia to spread propaganda *subtly*. The propaganda regarding Islam goes both ways.
My favorite thing about Wikipedia is the power editors who spend way too much time editing articles
Are all jannies power tripping asshoes?
what a perpetually online life devoid of any substance or value does to a mf
Based and fuck-jannies pilled.
Always has been
[Always has been](https://i.imgur.com/EwrPf0O.png)
^^^this ^^^has ^^^been ^^^an ^^^accessibility ^^^service ^^^from ^^^your ^^^friendly ^^^neighborhood ^^^bot
can you help show me some examples of this? I believe you and have seen it, I'd just like some references so I can show other people.
Say what you will, but looking at Afghanistan’s Wikipedia page yesterday was a sight to not have been missed
Wikipedia tracks edits. You can relive it any time.
I noticed that too. But why does everyone want to become anti western really. Specially since it's edited by western people. Are they too much self-criticizing?
It's a strange guilt. Truth be told, the West has done some pretty shitty things to the rest of the world, ranging from drug addictions to genocide. These people seem to think that this is their fault and wish to make "reparations".
The problem with this mindset is that it firstly obsesses over things that happened that we had no control over, but also that it detracts from the fact that those places the West went to are not good places. It detracts from that simple human kindness that we all have. We should help out those fellas, not because we made a mistake, but because they're struggling and we're nice.
New Leftists are a bunch of sad sacks who have no idea how the world functions or how we fix the innumerable problems with that world.
Add Anti-Hindu on the list too.
The fuck is CAA and all the fuckwads yelling "Jai Shri Ram" in the streets if not dangerous hindu nationalism
Go read about CAA.
And the communal shit happens on a daily basis. The Muslims start it first then the Hindus get angry and they repeat it.
The anti CAA protests were pointless. They were violent for no fucking reason other than people propagating misinformation. I personally blame it on the incompetence of the government to give them proper information. But the leaders atleast could have read what it was about instead of spewing bs and fear mongering.
So basically, the NRC requires everyone to put their name on the list, and if you don't have the right papers, you can get in if you're any religion that isn't muslim. The reason muslims aren't in here is because apparently pakistan and bangladesh are full of muslims, and so muslims aren't eligible or something
>It is relevant only for Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Parsi and Christian foreigners,
who have migrated from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan into India up
to 31.12.2014, on account of persecution faced by them due to their religion. It
does not apply to any other foreigners, including Muslims migrating to India
from any country, including these three countries.
>Can Hindus facing persecution on grounds of religion in countries other
than these 3 countries apply under the CAA?
>>No, they will have to apply through the usual process to get Indian Citizenship
just like any other foreigner for either registration or naturalization as a citizen
of India. They would get no preference under The Citizenship Act, 1955, even
after the CAA.
So, yeah. Muslims from these 3 countries aren't allowed. It's just about citizenship. No one is getting deported like how people were saying. It's fair share considering their lives in those countries and the number of people.
It only makes problems when you add in the NRC
NRC isn't even finalised. They haven't even decided whether to implement it on whole nation or not. It is implemented only in Assam and that was back in the day not recently. Nobody can say anything about how NRC will be implemented. Also, they can't deport anyone so easily under international laws. There will be provisions made to prevent people from wrongly getting deported.
Ain't that the point?
MMH the biggest infraction on Wikipedia is to do with the individuals lynched in america in my opinion. There is over 4000 of them known between 1880 and 1960 I believe the first date might be earlier. Yet Wikipedia has like100-200 individuals listed on it's list max.
Do the 100-200 have citations?
Because if they do, maybe the others don't have enough sources to be verified on the list?
They have sources but this is another article on a similar topic
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynchings\_in\_Elmore\_County,\_Alabama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynchings_in_Elmore_County,_Alabama) the names present here are also sourced but are not included on said list and there is even a suggestion to merge the two that has yet to be acted upon. It's clearly just not been done well.
Added to this is the fact that this exists in the real world and thus all these names are a matter of clear and evident public record. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Memorial\_for\_Peace\_and\_Justice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Memorial_for_Peace_and_Justice)
Eh. Wikipedia ain't perfect then IG.
Why don't you edit the page? You have the info right there.
Imagining editing Wikipedia and fixing the problems you're talking about instead of whining on Reddit.
Wikipedia edits it back. Go try it. Within weeks it will be reedited.
Edit it again then.
You can edit it for 3 times, then it just gets annoying.
**You resolve is lacking.**
I simply have much more to care about in my life than see whether someone edited what I had written.
Classic Authright having complex opinions on the history of lynchings
Let me guess...
...who's left off the list.
Thousands of blacks and non-blacks?
I see. I misunderstood your original comment.
Yeah, it's kinda sad. Wikipedia is such a great resource in some places, and so bad in others.
That's not cool.
Erase History much?
\*Loads .45\* if only i knew where these people were...
Larry Sanger, the man who co-founded Wikipedia, has cautioned that the website can’t always be trusted to give people the truth.
Yeah and Armenian and Greek nationalists keep editing articles on anything a out Turkey and changing anything they don't like.