Here a Wikimedia representative confirms them acting as a tool of Russian propaganda. I asked directly question why they banned me for questioning the Kremlin propagandists labeling Amir Khattab as "terrorist" at Russian wiki, and the Wikimedia guy avoids answering that and keeps pushing that I'm banned rightfully, yet doesn't point which exact rules I broke, saying only that my inquiries were "disruptive". Usually they indeed give second chance, but that seems doesn't apply to people coming and asking questions on political topics.
Here a Wikimedia representative confirms them acting as a tool of Russian propaganda...
Other urls found in this thread:
Ooops! Sorry for double post. The site is glitchy.
No idea what this is but I imagine it would waste my time and be something I don't care about.
Then what made you butthurt?
What will you do to me? Suck my dick? :D
Why are you showing this to us anyways? Just curious.
I can see why you were banned considering your post here contains at least two outright lies.
What lies exactly?
To show Wikipedia for what it is - a propaganda tool.
wikipedia are mega fagg ots. they are so corrupt and incompetent it defies belief
the admins on it are super fag gots
Well, then they should honestly admit being just another RussiaToday, and stop asking donations. I'm sure Putin can cover them server bills. But, not, they claim being NPoV. But with NPoV you don't use the word "terrorists", because it is always biased. You use more neutral words, like "militants".
Uh, we already know this.
you can cite a rule they will ignore it if it doesn't suit them.
sage we already know this
Oh wait, you think it's pro-Russia? lmao
Here's actually RussiaToday
wasn't he allied to bin Laden?
Wikipedia, especially Russian Wikipedia, is pro-Russian, although they try to hide it. English Wikipedia is about who pays Jimbo more. As a capitalist I have no problem with people taking money to advocate some PoV, but as a user rights advocate I'm against dishonest advertising, when they push PoV under guise of NPoV and request donations under that. The same with Kickstarter projects, when they collect money but then spent them on booze, instead of the promised purpose.
During Afghan war, when US itself supported Bin Laden. Also, knowing bin Laden doesn't mean you are a terrorist. Bin Laden is a terrorist because he blown up buildings and took credit for it. I.e. bin Laden pleaded guilty on terrorism charges.
Tell me user, how many factories do you own? You do seem to have more braincells than the average ancap.
None. But I also don't want one mega-corporation owning everything and everyone, like was during USSR. Currently I can get fired from one company but still find job at another or become self employed, but with Communism if you get fired, you're done. As a Russia I know Communism too well.
That is one stylish insurgent.
This shit OP that doesn't explain what's going on besides your own butthurt.
Fair enough. I understand why someone wouldn't be in favor of soviet socialism.
What do you need explained? That is capitalism for you: Putin pays, Jimbo allows him to publish any nonsense about anyone.
The problem is that all socialism degrades into a capitalism with single corporation, and then loses competition to more competitive countries. I.e. USSR was incapable of innovation, stealing even children toy designs. That is due to numerous reasons, starting with absence of competition and ending with talented people being gulaged first, because bureaucrats like it that way. What Stalin did after getting power was purging anyone smarter than him and putting stupid but controllable people everywhere.
Of course it's a propaganda tool.
Every government on the planet tries to edit Wikipedia to serve its own propaganda purposes.
From what I've seen the biggest bias is a pro-American one. Half of the mods are probably on the CIA payroll.
Because America has the most money. But it is not actually pro-America, it is pro-specific politicians and organizations. When you want to have nice Wikipedia profile, you contact one of these PR companies, which have agreement with Jimbo about nature and scale of edits.
even "democratized" media cant be unbiased as long as they have leaders and capital involved. Why wouldn't they try and censor articles they don't agree with?
First off, wouldn't that just be called state capitalism by definition (as you described) if the state acts as one giant mega corporation and still uses wage labor? If i remember correctly, communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. I could see it be defined as socialism depending on who you ask but definitely not communism.