Haha I’m committed to the truth but not that committed. Anyone can edit an article to put in whatever blurb they want, but it won’t stick for long if most of the community agrees with it and it has decent citations (none of which are in the screenshot). Also the text isn’t written professionally, “love to cuddle” is not language that would normally appear in a scientific wiki article.
Not a case anymore, unfortunately. There are leftist meme articles that only cite tweets and buzzfeed reposting said tweets, but if try to do anything about it, your edits will be instantly reverted and your account gets banned.
The most obvious example I know of is this one. Not a thing, never was a thing, and the entire page is just folk from 196 and blahaj dunking on wikipedia. And check out the talk page where they try to pretend that the skeleton image is the best representation of said “phenomenon”, while simultaneously removing any messages doubting it’s existence.
While not all films, television shows, photographs, and music videos that use this lighting intend to portray bisexuality, many queer artists have deliberately used this color palette
It also uses sources such as Vice and the BBC
I wouldn’t call it a high quality article, like at all, but I also wouldn’t call it factually incorrect.
many queer artists have deliberately used this color palette
[Citation needed]
There were definitely none that did before the wiki article was created.
It also uses sources such as Vice and the BBC
The article from BBC is fluff written by a rando and is based completely off twitter circlejerk. VICE is not a reliable source as anyone can register as an author and make articles there.
Check the article history.
Haha I’m committed to the truth but not that committed. Anyone can edit an article to put in whatever blurb they want, but it won’t stick for long if most of the community agrees with it and it has decent citations (none of which are in the screenshot). Also the text isn’t written professionally, “love to cuddle” is not language that would normally appear in a scientific wiki article.
Not a case anymore, unfortunately. There are leftist meme articles that only cite tweets and buzzfeed reposting said tweets, but if try to do anything about it, your edits will be instantly reverted and your account gets banned.
Without examples it’s hard to say anything at all beyond guesses really.
But if the article is about a xitter meme, tweets are the original source, and therefore perfectly relevant citations.
The most obvious example I know of is this one. Not a thing, never was a thing, and the entire page is just folk from 196 and blahaj dunking on wikipedia. And check out the talk page where they try to pretend that the skeleton image is the best representation of said “phenomenon”, while simultaneously removing any messages doubting it’s existence.
I dunno, it doesn’t seem to overstate its case
It also uses sources such as Vice and the BBC
I wouldn’t call it a high quality article, like at all, but I also wouldn’t call it factually incorrect.
[Citation needed]
There were definitely none that did before the wiki article was created.
The article from BBC is fluff written by a rando and is based completely off twitter circlejerk. VICE is not a reliable source as anyone can register as an author and make articles there.
Was it instareverted?