Wikipedia is definitely credible trust me bro they’re listening to unbiased UKRAINIAN propaganda instead of conniving Russian propaganda

  • Bratsva1 [none/use name]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Russia isn't releasing any stats for deaths, so what exactly would they put up? The "expert" opinions off people on here?

    • Glass [he/him,they/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      given the choice between posting nothing and posting hilarious propaganda, the obvious responsible choice is to post nothing

      • Bratsva1 [none/use name]
        ·
        3 years ago

        The fog of war means no one knows what is actually happening. Plus who would decide what is "propaganda"? You? It says according to Ukrainian claims above the stats, so anyone with any critical thinking should know there is some bias

        • NuraShiny [any]
          ·
          3 years ago

          2800 killed vs 40 killed. Some Bias. Wild.

          Please tell us more of your amazing wisdom, you're doing so very well so far!

          • Bratsva1 [none/use name]
            ·
            3 years ago

            Check the source and those are stats from the first day and haven't been updated since. So are people just upset that up to date stats aren't being posted if no one is reporting?

            • NuraShiny [any]
              ·
              3 years ago

              Are you shook? I ask because you replied the same fucking thing to me three times.

              These stats were obviously false on day 1 as well so I don't see how you are making a good argument.

              • Bratsva1 [none/use name]
                ·
                3 years ago

                Shook, hot and bothered. Also the first day was mostly just air strikes on Ukrainian ports and airports, where the aim was to just damage the infrastructure, so believeable

            • WhyEssEff [she/her]
              ·
              3 years ago

              doesn't matter, under no reasonable circumstances should that data have been allowed to stay up there uncritically for as long as it did if wikipedia cared one semblance about factuality. If there's no verifiable information, you should put up no information.

            • ShareThatBread [he/him, comrade/them]
              ·
              3 years ago

              The “source” is the BBC reporting on a Facebook post which they then explicitly state the figures are not verifiable. Fucking moron.

        • Glass [he/him,they/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Yes, exactly. A hilarious, utterly-disconected-from-reality level of bias that renders any info from that source completely farcical. I'm glad you see the problem.

    • WhyEssEff [she/her]
      ·
      3 years ago

      literally just add "unconfirmed" if it needs to be there. it's against their own policy, though they def don't care.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves #2

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion #1

      • Bratsva1 [none/use name]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Every claim about a war could be labeled as "unconfirmed". Everything about WW2 and any major war could be labeled as that. You seem to just be petty about this type off things.

        • WhyEssEff [she/her]
          ·
          3 years ago

          ww2 is one of the most heavily documented events in history. this is an ongoing event where information is king. these are not comparable, i'd suggest you shut the fuck up before you umm actually your way into denying the holocaust as a hypothetical given your ww2 comparison.