Yes it does. But not all of that information is always true. Wikipedia pages are vandalized all the time, people quote sources that are later revealed as made up or not credible, these are all things that happen everywhere, WikiPedia is not immune to this. That is why I said WikiPedia is not a “force for truth.” It can be correct, but can you guarantee that every time you go to WikiPedia, the information on any given page will always be 100% correct? This is all I meant.
Well as I said it, isn’t completely useless. I mean, sources aren’t always reputable. People make mistakes, people act in bad faith, things happen.
I was just saying that WikiPedia is not a “bastion of truth,” because it is very susceptible to wrong information. Sure, the information may be correct most of the time on popular high traffic pages, but on low traffic pages, or pages that used to be low traffic and suddenly became high traffic because of some topical issue, can you really be sure that you aren’t reading wrong or biased information? That is all I am bringing up. I think any person with a brain can realize this, but I wanted to be sure to mention it regardless, as many people seem to not meet that low specification.
Honestly. Could be any user on any platform, Lemmy not excluded.
I don’t know exactly what is going on with WikiPedia right this moment, mostly because I am neither glued to the news nor to WikiPedia, and I have no idea who this user you talk about is or what they are saying. However, WikiPedia isnt exactly a 100% trustworthy source, and it never really was.
Calling WikiPedia a “force for truth” is kind of silly, in my opinion. It can be helpful with basic information or finding potential sources, but it is definitely not something you should just immediately take everything on the site at face value. Within the last maybe 10 years or so, the credibility of its sources have started to come into question, at least on some of their recently authored/edited articles. It certainly doesnt help that literally anyone can edit most pages, and that WikiPedia is not a verifiably neutral information source on most things. What I mean by this is that, WikiPedia might list both positive and negative reception about a certain film or video game, for example, but they usually wont mention whether the negative points are outliers or whether there is overwhelmingly more positive reception except if there is a controversy section. This gives a surface appearance of being neutral, but actually skews toward whichever side is the dissenting opinion. For video games and film, they at least list reviews which can kind of mitigate this, but on articles regarding history or art, you cant exactly put reviews on historian/artist opinions. This can lead (and has lead) to some instances of sources quoting themselves (which I think is against WikiPedia rules?) and other hilarity.
Not on Lemmy though.
Also, Pro Tip:
Sometimes you can occasionally make a comment you know will be taken negatively so that you can update your block list of people who choose to leave mean replies. It helps to phrase it in a way that will create an emotional response. This is helpful for removing these people from your feed, because usually they leave negative comments like that on every reply they make. Very rarely do I find a person that is nice in most of their comments leaving a mean one, like ever. But also it is very rare I find these kind of people in the first place anymore.
Nah, Lemmy users are just mean, worse than Redditors. Add in internet anonymity and you get users that just dont care about other people, even going out of their way to harass or try to fight by writing comments like they’re trying to catch someone in a trap they think is clever.
Thankfully I can block entire instances so I dont have to deal with most of them. Its just a shame, because Lemmy was supposed to be better than Reddit, but I am seeing more that its almost worse. The only reason I even still use Lemmy is because I don’t like the Reddit mobile app. That’s literally it.
I definitely dont stay here for the users.
Not everyone I meet treats me the way people on Lemmy treat me. I am told I am a kind person and most people, while apathetic, are not so rude as Lemmy users. It’s a great quote, but ultimately not applicable to this particular situation. Have a good day, or not, make of it however you will.
I love it when I say what I think and people don’t have a real response so they just call me a troll, lol.
That’s fine, block me so I don’t have to deal with you anymore, I’m cool with that.
In case someone reading had a similar question but about race. Why do you care, do people of different races bother you?
I dont think so, nor do I care. Black people dress up as white characters all the time, I consider it the same. Dressing up as a character means that character means something to you, so I dont see where anyone should be offended by it.
Connect app for Lemmy actually has this feature, and it really is a gamechanger. I mean, it makes Lemmy kinda into a desolate wasteland of posts, but its better than seeing most of the garbage I don’t care about and don’t want to interact with.
Granted, this also relies on users putting said keywords in the title of their post, so I still end up seeing stuff I don’t want to, but it is drastically decreased.
I like the way Lemmy functions, with things like an open moderator log and the way that instances can be created to prevent too much control from one singular instance from pushing people completely off the platform if they have bad moderation, for example.
I don’t like the users. For every one user that is nice and wants to have a legitimate conversation, there are like 300 that just want to fight/argue or spew politics into a non-political conversation. The number of users I have blocked on Lemmy is far longer than the amount of users I ever blocked on Reddit, and my Reddit account existed for about 10 years. This Lemmy account has only been around for about 1/10th of that.
One of the biggest strengths of Lemmy is also one of its biggest curses. Due to its federated nature, anyone can create a new instance. The problem with this is that particularly nasty users can keep creating accounts on instances they keep creating in order to harass people they don’t like. So even if you block them, they just switch to a new account, etc. They can also do this for vote manipulation, not like that really matters on Lemmy but Lemmy users seem to have fallen victim to the same problem Redditors had: seeing a comment with 0 or -1 score and then completely disregarding whatever it said, not reading it and downvoting it automatically.
Reddit 2.0 lol
Not really. More politically far-left than Reddit is (and more political just in general, actually), but other than that Lemmy is more or less the same when it comes to how its users act and treat each other.
Tell her you are going to get her what she wants with the budget you provide? She can pick it out and you know she will be happy with it. Sometimes its the thought that counts, but no woman wants to be stuck with jewelry they think is ugly and they dont want to wear, no matter how thoughtful the person that gifted it to them was.
You thought you were slick, didn’t you? Rad? Tubular? Mean?
Fads come and go. Some are better than others, I am personally partial to “slick.” Fire will fade away but cool will return just like it always has.
This is unfortunately very true in my experience as well. In my opinion it is actually worse than when I was on Reddit. Nothing can be done about it, sadly.
I think when it comes to blocking, the best approach is when a blocked user is still able to reply but those are hidden from the person that blocked them. While this does basically lead to “harrassment behind their back,” it also prevents users from stifling conversation intentionally by preventing those users from blocking others that may disagree with them so that there is no real discussion or conversation on a comment or topic.
Its a shiniest of two turds option, as the ideal situation is that everyone can be nice and not nasty when someone has a different opinion, thus a block feature not needing to exist. But since we can’t be having any “wrongthink,” (whatever that may mean to each user is different) and anonymity brings out the worst in people, a block feature the way it currently works is necessary.
One annoying feature is that all replies to a blocked user are also automatically hidden regardless of if those people are blocked or not, which I wish wouldn’t happen. Even if the client loaded a dummy comment in place of a blocked user it would be better IMO.
But at the end of the day, there is not really anything anyone can do to prevent other people from reading or interacting with your Lemmy account. They can just not log in, or they can create a new account. They could even create a whole new instance just to keep making accounts. Its like playing whackamole, you just hope the ones you block dont go that far.
I’ll be real, this sounds like a question a criminal would ask.
Do you ever go back to a WikiPedia article after you read it to check if it has been updated? Yeah, didn’t think so. Most people don’t. Thats why there is danger in just believing everything on WikiPedia because its on there and its free. Its not a bad resource, but it isn’t always a good source either.
But obviously you and others have some weird fetish regarding WikiPedia, so I guess this is where the conversation stops. People here be making it out like I am saying WikiPedia is evil and that is definitely not what I am saying, but I suppose on Lemmy it doesn’t really matter. People believe whatever they want to regardless.