Skip Navigation

Posts
5
Comments
993
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I'm not experiencing any cognitive dissonance. I said what I meant.

  • this seems like an is/ought problem

  • I don't give a fuck. sell subscriptions, push ads, whatever. but if you deny access based on an ability to pay, what you have to say isn't worth my time.

  • sell their stories to newspapers

  • Why do you think that journalists don’t deserve to get paid?

    they didn't say that. you're making a leap of logic and putting words in their mouth

  • Is a broken down motorist the same exact thing as a person blocking an ambulance, repeatedly, being informed that they are blocking an ambulance, and even after being informed continues to do so?

    that's never happened

  • there is no recourse for r/worldnews moderation, but i assure you, you can (and should) fix erroneous articles on wikipedia.

  • you just need to time it and work it on the talk page. I'm sure that you can get this article fixed.

  • if the source says preemptive, that's going to be a hard sell. Go find another source and bring it up on the talk page.

  • further, I wouldn't just remove the word preemptive if I thought this was really an issue. I'd go find a reliable source that would support a rewrite of the whole sentence or paragraph or section.

    then I would go to the talk page and I would let everybody know what I'm doing and why. and then I wouldn't do it for 24 hours. and then I would make the edits and if anybody reverted it I would revert it back and then direct them to the talk page.

  • isn't it accurate to say it's preemptive? you could say unprovoked, but I don't think that's strictly true. I think preemptive is the best way to frame it: it shows that they struck first and leaves it open as to whether anybody would have struck them at all.

  • you can edit Wikipedia too. The bureaucracy can be a little bit frustrating and daunting, but you can certainly keep the record accurate.