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

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

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

    • Bratsva1 [none/use name]
      ·
      2 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]
        ·
        2 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]
          ·
          2 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]
            ·
            2 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]
              ·
              2 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]
            ·
            2 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, he/him]
            ·
            2 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]
        ·
        2 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.