Technology

59440 readers

3572 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

864

Darkness reigns over Wikipedia as official dark mode comes to pass (arstechnica.com)

submitted 3 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

121 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

the ridiculously detailed

An encyclopedia calling an article ridiculously detailed is... interesting.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Kinda burying the lede on that complaint......

and 321 edits on the ridiculously detailed International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both of these articles were, at one time, strongly biased in favor of Russia.

Wikipedia cares more about bias than* ridiculous details, especially when the ridiculous detail is there to put bias into the article

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I read it as adding a bunch of superfluous details that were biased.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

What is the difference between including ridiculous amounts of detail to bias the article, and superfluous biased details that still end up with a biased article?

Seems like a distinction without a difference.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev -1 points 3 months ago

I didn't imply those were different, I don't get your point.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago

reads almost like it's talking about the situation at hand having been extensively and thoroughly documented to the point of it being impossible to "be wrong" to me

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I think their point was that since he got Russian government permission to use Russian gov media, and he wrote a very detailed (although very biased in favour of Russia) article, then they think he is receiving assistance from the russian government to push Russian propaganda.