🇳🇱
@djsumdog Wikipedia has high quality good content and is relatively not biased (it is sometimes bias).
Snopes on the other hand is a bias piece of shit.
Anything related to politics on Wikipedia is a dumpster fire. Eg. the Jan 6 riot page still counts Brian Sicknick as a casualty, despite the official coroner's report stating that he died of a random stroke the following day, ruling it a death by natural causes. That's just outright denial of reality and misinformation, yet the Wikipedia jannies refuse to change it.
Arent you specifically linking the wikipedia article itself where it mentions the stroke? Looks like they presented that side of the argument, you literally highlighted it.
So they told the truth you just dont like the title headers and think they need to sprinkle the world "allegedly" everywhere?
The fact that the stroke is unrelated is your opinion. They cited source that claim events from the day contributed to the stroke as well. Are you suggesting they have to eliminate that side all together? At best you have an argument they should have said "alleged", otherwise both the stroke and how the preceeding days events were claimed to contribute to it are both covered, just as both sides should be.
>They cited source that claim events from the day contributed to the stroke as well
There is literally no evidence for this. There can't be, because it's insane and literally impossible. How the fuck can they possibly connect?
Huh, a blow to the head can cause delayed strokes all the time.
No lmao. You do not just get spontaneous strokes days after a scuffle with no injury between point A and point B.
Show me literally any evidence that connects that death to that day.
It is a less extraordinary claim to say that the state murdered him to increase the death count than to say that he just magically got a stroke.
If you are trying to apply occam's razor, you are doing it in reverse.
taking a blow to the head and then having a stroke 24 hours later is not magick and perfectly reasonable to connect the two
Maybe you are talking about someone else and I got the names mixed up. Thought you were talking about the cop who got hit int he head with a fire extinguisher then died of a stroke the next day.
Snopes has fact checked you false, DEBOONKED!!1!
snopes.com/fact-check/brian-sicknick-fire-extinguisher/
>Citing two unnamed law enforcement sources, the Times initially reported Sicknick “was struck with a fire extinguisher,”
In what fucking universe is "I got my skull bashed in with a fire extinguisher and am perfectly fine from that but it killed me 2 weeks later from a stroke" a believable story lmfao
Thi sisnt ab out what side is correct. Wikipedia just needs to provide the citations and arguments, not dictate a conclusion.
It is dictating the conclusion that he was murdered by Jan 6th protestors, which is obviously a lie and not even an actual opinion.
Yeah, counting someone as a casualty is a conclusion. It's stating that someone died as a result of the actions of another party. That was contradicted by the medical examiner, as a natural causes ruling means that the death was 100% caused by a medical condition:
> But the determination of a natural cause of death means the medical examiner found that a medical condition alone caused his death — it was not brought on by an injury. The determination is likely to significantly inhibit the ability of federal prosecutors to bring homicide charges in connection with Sicknick’s death.
You are not unbiased because you put "Some unhinged conspiracy theorists have a different viewpoint which is wrong" at the bottom of your article.
Oh My God. Are you still arguing over fucking wikipedia?!?!
SHUT THE FUCK UP! I leave for five hours and come back to an 90+ status long thread where you keep arguing?! Freemo, you're an insufferable asshole. You have never once admitted to anyone in your (fedi)life you were wrong. You're the Jebus fucking Christ of Science. You love being right. We get it.
@Eris @natsock @InceptionState
Oh no a thread discussing the merits of wikipedia went on in your absence. How ever shall you cope, poor thing.
And yet are now completely triggered because while you were out drinking someone was here working, stuck behind a computer, and chatting about wikipedia while you were gone.. how awful, no wonder your so triggered.
"Chatting about wikipedia" is a very passive way of describing what you are doing. You are rabidly defending wikipedia in absence of all reason or critical thought.
I spend half of every year int he carribean SCUBA diving and island hoping.. I think im good.
He's right, you absolutely should listen to him and interact with me less.
A medical examiner opining that way clearly should not be considered evidence of a casualty. The fact that remains in the article is an appeal to authority in order to bolster a favored narrative.
@InceptionState @djsumdog
You grant good faith to acts that are OBVIOUSLY made in bad faith.
Literally nothing can reason you out of defending these people. Your responses are not based on reality.
Yes, they should have removed Sicknick from the casualties count, and put discussion of his medical condition in a section titled "misinformation regarding the death of Brian Sicknick" or something similar. They quoted one line of the ME's report out of context to lend that perspective a fig leaf of legitimacy, but it fails under any non-trivial scrutiny. The line "all that transpired played a role in his condition" does not claim any causal link between the riot and Sicknick's stroke the next day.
He is specifically listed under the casualties section, and the sidebar includes him as one of the five deaths caused by the event, under "casualties and criminal charges". Hedging a little by noting that he did indeed die of a random stroke the day after the event, several thousand words into the article, does not correct that.
Seriously though, it's hardly an isolated example. Wikipedia is fine for stuff distant from politics, but the closer a topic is to a politically charged subject, the less I trust it.