How Saint Patrick's Day Became A Day Of Drinking And Acting Insufferable On Social Media
-2
Sweet Baby Inc Detected Controversy - The supposedly demonitized video cited in one of the images in this entry is in fact not demonetized
| ◄ Previous | View Gallery Random Image | Next ► |
![you reliable sources? ikipedia NOTFORUM ntionally uscating facts via offission [hide] This is direct criticism directed towards the Wikipedia editors responsible for the SBI-article as well as those here on the Talk-page refusing to correct misinformation. Repeatedly, registered editors have replied with "do you have reliable sources?" when people explained how the current version of the article is plain wrong. When sources are being mentioned, it is dismissed under the guise of "social media posts are not accepted on Wikipedia". That much would be somewhat okay (albeit still weird in the year 2024, when much official stuff takes place on Twitter and co.), if the consequence then would have been to remove the article due to a lack of sources that display the entire situation. This didn't happen as of now. Instead, websites such as Kotaku, IGN, Eurogamer, Polygon and others are accepted as "reliable sources". The issue here is that all these websites have long joined an ideological side in this dumb "culture war" or whatever you want to call it. I'm not calling for any side, the point is: These traditional news media all intentionally omit key information from their articles, because only so can they push the narrative that SBI critics are "evil". Altright, nazis, women hater, homophobes, transphobes, racists, bigots, etc. - these websites call everyone who dares criticizing SBI that, whether it is directly so or via established wording (like calling it "GamerGate 2.0" which has long since strongly connotated to all the aforementioned insults). And these websites are now accepted as "reliable sources" by Wikipedia-editors such as "Rhaine", "Dumuzid" or "MrOllie" or "Jester". Instead of listening to the people voicing their criticism (we're not doing this for fun ...), we're being further vilified by being told that we "believe" something, when all we're doing is pointing out factual errors. We're being told to make this Talk-page a "battleground", which for all the time being was not the case, again, we were only pointing out factual errors. At this point, it is SO weird how all these registered Wikipedia editors fail to grasp what the issue is: That by omitting one side of the ongoing situation entirely, you create a false image of the situation as a whole. It doesn't matter what side I'm on, behavior like this would be bad for any ongoing situation. Nobody her wants you to change the article to say "the critics of SBI are heroes, fighting for justice". No, all we desire is that you include EVERYTHING in the article. IF that is not possible because you insist on your "social media posts are not allowed as source", then the only reasonable cause of action would be to remove the entire article. Take it offline, wait until the situation is over, then report after the fact when all facts are bared in the open. Right now, the article only benefits bad actors who will use it as ammunition for their agenda ("See, everyone, even Wikipedia says these guys are bad!!1, it's OFFICIAL!!!1"), allthewhile you kept saying that you have no interest in taking a role in this situation. Well, you're doing that right now in this moment. A neutral position would either add key information to the article or, if that's not possible, unpublish it until further information becomes available. After being threatened by Wikipedia editor Jester, I expect the worst after posting this topic, but I also hope that this reaches someone in position of power on Wikipedia who wants to prevent Wikipedia becoming an anti-factual place that exists for pushing agenda that certain editors find themselves siding with. One last time: The critics of SBI are not nazis, nor women haters, nor racists or anything like that. The current version of this Wikipedia-article insinuates exactly that, though. I won't accept being called that. I have done nothing to deserve it. Thx. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Just to be 100% clear, the underlying complaint here, whether true or not, is that these consultants were responsible for more diversity in video games? Do I have that correct? Dumuzid (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) No.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/002/775/246/7ab.png "As with Gamergate, so with this")
There are no comments currently available.
Display Comments