• NutWrench@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    One of best features about Lemmy is that you can deal with abusive, power-tripping mods by switching to the same community in another Instance.

    If enough people feel the same way you do, then THAT community will be become the “official” one (based on the number of subscribers) and the old community will wither and die.

    • ___@lemm.ee
      0·
      2 months ago

      Is there a Lemmy app that can show the same communities from multiple servers on the same feed? Like all subscribed news@‘s in one?

    • NutWrench@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Also, if your moderator is rejecting Wikipedia links as “propaganda” then they have no business being a moderator. Wikipedia is one of the last, best sources of information on the Internet that isn’t biased, corporate-sponsored bullsh*t. Those mods are either UP TO something or have been bonked on the head.

      Since you’re never going to win an argument with a moderator with an agenda, you can save yourself a lot of drama and pain by moving to a community that is beyond their reach.

        • NutWrench@lemmy.mlEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          In the real world, reality is determined by objective facts, not by your “point of view.” You’re not Obi-wan Kenobi.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Wikipedia is one of the last, best sources of information on the Internet that isn’t biased, corporate-sponsored bullsh*t.

        Instead it’s bullshit built upon elaborate bureaucracy which has it’s own layers of issues depending on exactly what topic/field we’re talking about.

        The biggest and most obvious flaw being that it’s more or less explicitly designed to fail spectacularly as regards any topic that the media doesn’t want to talk about (for example, anything that might make the media look bad) because there’s going to be an intentional lack of “reliable sources” on those topics.

        The definition of a “reliable source” is another - there’s a fair bit of jockeying on that which functionally biases WP. Especially when you start looking at what disqualified a given source from being “reliable” and start to notice that the bar seems to be set very unevenly depending on the particular source and how well liked it is by certain power-editors.

        It’s good enough for anything that’s not politically contentious to anyone, but I would never use it for anything other than a vague overview and starting point for other sources to dig into.

        • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 months ago

          OK that’s all fair enough. But isn’t this just a situation of humans being humans? Blaming Wikipedia for it is like blaming the United Nations for the lack of world peace.

          Not saying you’re wrong, exactly, but I also think you don’t have an idea, realistically, of how to make Wikipedia function better on controversial subjects. I certainly don’t. It’s easy to bash Wikipedia, like it’s easy to bash the UN. In the meantime, cynicism is corrosive and Wikipedia is all we have.

    • timestatic@feddit.org
      0·
      2 months ago

      Relies on enough people figuring out or getting enough issues with one community to actively do so. How often has this actually happened?