It’s an interesting the gradual technical changes, from bullets to gas to bombs to depravation of water. They must measure big improvements in efficiency, measured in number of deaths per dollar and per day. Imagine of a report from a recent study on this got leaked!

polar bears. it’s the only animal that likes to eat people. daily life is just too safe and dull.

die hard

Do you know how to start a wiki? Is there a very easy way just to start writing? I saw that github has a wiki section, so I could do it from a github account. But I don’t that that’s a real wiki at all, because random internet people couldn’t contribute to it.

There are good reasons to want to collaborate with ideological enemies.

Conservatives are generally good people, and are right about many things. They are just misguided on a few economic points. I know many people like this. They just haven’t read widely enough, or can’t think creatively about economics, or have never heard any other theory convincingly expressed.

People will generally stay in their boxes and read only their own wikis. Conservapedia people will remain conservative and misguided forever. But maybe you want to influence people outside your box. That’s where you want to share a space with other groups. If it’s equally easy to read any perspective, people people might read a few and change their minds about what the truth is. This is a good thing for a very niche but very true perspective like marxism.

For this to work, the new shared wiki has to be widely read. That means it has to become bigger than wikipedia, to supplant wikipedia.

The most important thing is to make it obvious to close-minded people that there are always different valid perspectives on every issue. If the go-to encyclopedia has this concept built-in, many people will start to understand it.

LOL

Yes of course. Just because this other project is possible doesn’t make your project less valuable.

I would like to make this. It would replace wikipedia with something more better. I have a much simpler encyclopedia project I’d like to do first, for practice. And I don’t even have the skills to do the simple project yet.

Yes that’s all true. Wikipedia deals with this as every encyclopaedia does, by feigning being neutral, feigning that it is possible to be neutral, and posting some version of events as the truth. That was fine for 20th century naïve readers, but not tenable today.

Prolewiki can give the Marxist version of events and that’s a valuable addition, another credible perspective. But it will always cover only niche topics for niche readers.

Better than this would be a project bigger then Wikipedia. It would be more useful and credible to readers, because it shows diverse views. It could replace Wikipedia.

On day one it would show exactly the same content as Wikipedia, but would quickly grow to be broader.

Imagine Wikipedia, prolewiki, anarchistwiki, neoconwiki, keynsianwiki, all on the same website on different tabs. People can flick from one to the other.

People who start off looking only at the neocon version will one day flick to the prole one. They might find it more convincing.

i can’t believe that nobody has made a fork of Wikipedia to give a broader and more neutral perspective.

It would be a very simple project, because you would simply add to the existing database. You would have tabs. “mainstream” would be a usual Wikipedia content. You could switch to the “Marxist” tab to see modified content.

Just use schwalbe marathon. They are puncture proof and last forever. I once got home and picked a shard of glass as king as my fingernail out of one.

Most people haven’t. We all have a filter bubble.

Here is a first draft, my attempt to provide the missing context. Please leave comments on anything bad or missing you notice. https://lemmy.ml/post/4848742

Background? Link?

That all sounds like brigading emotional nonsense. In fact, there were strong reasons for Russia to invade. It is probably true that Russia was manipulated into invading, it had no choice because of strategic decisions made by Ukraine. It’s a shame none of the people you talked to were able to argue the issues sensibly.

Any update on this?

I couldn’t find any comment from the devs. Was there one?

There is an extra problem, not mentioned here. When there are subs with the same name, it is actually impossible to know of choose which sub I am posting to. Like here.

The fools talk much more than the wise. I wonder about just blocking most of the people I don’t find interesting. Then I could only see writings from sensible and interesting people.

Maybe there is a technical solution, which doesn’t require so much effort by the user.

This seems like the right approach. You can get different answers depending on which measure you use

You could compare

1.Willful killings in total

2. willful killings per year

3. willful killings during the 1920s-40s

4. willful killings during Churchill’s regime versus Hitler’s regime.

I guess the UK will have higher numbers by every measure except 1. The figures should be easy to find.

But what’s the reason for posting a screenshot instead of a link? Lots of people are doing it. It must be more effort for you than posting a link.

here?

most of those behind were for being “reactionary” or “not an answer”. sounds more like general censorship of ideas and opinions. there was even a post banned for “bad faith arguments, downplaying severity of western settler-colonialism, and both sidesing Ukraine conflict”.

the mod logs interesting. but i don’t see anything relevant. or maybe i don’t see how it is relevant.

is there any evidence that this actually happens, or would happen?

all i ever see is humans being blocked or frustrated by the bot. i have never seen any kind of malicious spamming that could have been prevented by such a bot. spammers are normally thwarted by human mods.

the bot seems obsolete.

if OP had posted a link instead of a screen shot, we could have just clicked it to find out. i don’t understand why posters go to the trouble to frustrate their readers this way.

The lemmy devs and users are rigidly against hate speech / free speech. they are afraid it will push away many users who are more sensitive, and ruin the quality of discussion. they don’t tolerate free speech instances.

but who knows, they might be right.