No. Fuck you Snopes. Your site is continually full of bullshit. Anyone who donates to either Snopes or Wikipedia is a god damn fool. The Internet would evolve better tools if both of these pieces of shit went away.

@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.

@freemo @djsumdog Wikipedia puts a message into any vessel that can hold one. It's difficult to do for articles like "Identification of alkaline earth cations," but they would if they could.

@natsock
@djsumdog

Maybe if you want to consider settled facts stated as fact as being a "bias" sure. ::shrug::

@freemo @natsock @djsumdog

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.

@InceptionState

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.

@djsumdog @natsock

@freemo @djsumdog @natsock

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.

@InceptionState

So they told the truth you just dont like the title headers and think they need to sprinkle the world "allegedly" everywhere?

@djsumdog @natsock

@freemo @djsumdog @natsock

No, it's incorrect. Someone who dies the day after a riot due to an unrelated stroke is not a casualty... Including them as a casualty in multiple places in the article is clearly erroneous.

@InceptionState

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.

@djsumdog @natsock

@freemo @InceptionState @djsumdog @natsock

>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?

@Eris

Huh, a blow to the head can cause delayed strokes all the time.

@djsumdog @natsock @InceptionState

@freemo @djsumdog @natsock @InceptionState

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.

@freemo @InceptionState @djsumdog @natsock

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.

@Eris

taking a blow to the head and then having a stroke 24 hours later is not magick and perfectly reasonable to connect the two

@djsumdog @natsock @InceptionState