I find this shit funny as hell in the short term, but
It does make our work harder.
If you really need to take a screenshot for the meme, please at least just use the VisualEditor, which is a what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) editor that will allow for a near-identical screenshot without actually publishing. If it's not perfectly identical, you can go to the source editor and click 'Preview', which will actually render an identical page without publishing.
We really do take neutrality seriously – not primarily for our image but because, empirically, not doing that destroys the quality of the project.
Inspect will be fine for basic text edits, but it'll get annoying compared to the VE or source editor if you're adding a lot of text or trying to do something semi-elaborate.
On the other hand, Inspect will work where the editor won't if the article is protected and you lack access.
you really need to take a screenshot for the meme, please at least just use the VisualEditor, which is a what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) editor that will allow for a near-identical screenshot without actually publishing. If it’s not perfectly identical, you can go to the source editor and click ‘Preview’, which will actually render an identical page without publishing.
Well, semi-seriously. In the Russian-language wikipedia it is forbidden to talk of Ukraine as an independent country. I don't consider that terribly neutral. (They did have a vote about this, and because the Russian-language Wikipedia has more users from the Russia than from other countries, the Russian "opinion" about this won the vote. But it's absolutely not neutral anyway and with such a rule in place, it's ridiculous to claim that Wikipedia is really neutral. It is neutral-ish, though, yes.)
I should've clarified "the English Wikipedia", since I can't speak for all the languages (although all the other ones I've regularly visited have been fine). The English Wikipedia sets its own policies and guidelines, and the other languages are free to choose their policies and guidelines (within the bounds of the WMF). Ours on neutrality is as follows:
I hadn't known that eqch language version has such a high level of autonomy.
Though, when reading that text, it also looks like there are Wikipedia-wide standards that the ruling on Russian-language Wikipedia is clearly breaking. (I noticed this when I was trying to edit an article about an electric locomotive built in Ukraine and used nowhere else than Ukraine. When I corrected phrasing "built on Ukraine" to "built in Ukraine", a error message popped up telling that " on Ukraine" has been decided as the only allowed form. And the grammatical rule is that of independent countries you always say "in". After the Orange Revolution in 2008 the Russia made an exception to this rule, because it wanted to prepare Russians for the invasion that then took place six years later, in 2014. But that exception was never accepted by Ukrainians, who continued using system that had been official since 1991. And it's quite crazy than in an article about Ukraine, written mainly for Ukrainians, in a language used by 40% of Ukrainians as their everyday language, you are forced to use grammatical forms that can only be used about a region but never about an independent county!)
a error message popped up telling that " on Ukraine" has been decided as the only allowed form.
That's... interesting and concerning. I unfortunately lack the knowledge to find how that rule was implemented or how it slots into the Russian Wikipedia's policies. Keep in mind in that NPOV article that "Wikipedia" is shorthand for "the English Wikipedia" following the first sentence, so huge portions of that only inherently apply to English (even if there's probably a lot of overlap with others). There really are major languages I basically never visit, and Russian is one of them – only very occasionally for cross-linking a Russian topic we lack an article about. I'm totally inept about what goes on there.
He's been on the clearly wrong side of bad takes numerous times at this point.
2006: "were the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust exaggerated?"
2010s: racist shit about black people
2019 on: anti-masking drivel
2020: stop the steal
2023: livestream, a poll says 25% of black/brown folks feel a bit weird about if someone were to say "it's ok to be white", Scott says "best advice I can give to white ppl, get the hell away from black people, there's no fixing this."
Almost every newspaper was already close to breaking, they all basically drop him and syndication cancelled.
Me: Healthy, alive, & pointing and laughing at his dead, dumb ass.
Yeah, based on what the Wikipedia said and what you say in your comment, this quote by @anunusualrelic@lemmy.world summarizes it extremely efficiently:
The cartoonist for Dilbert was kind of fun, then he started to be kind of weird, then he became really odd, then he turned into a total weirdo, then he died. The end.
The cartoonist for Dilbert was kind of fun, then he started to be kind of weird, then he became really odd, then he turned into a total weirdo, then he died. The end.
42 Comments
lime@feddit.nu · 182 pts · 214d
don't vandalize wikipedia :( editors work very hard for no pay
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · 206 pts · 214d
I can confirm as a longtime editor that:
I find this shit funny as hell in the short term, but
It does make our work harder.
If you really need to take a screenshot for the meme, please at least just use the VisualEditor, which is a what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) editor that will allow for a near-identical screenshot without actually publishing. If it's not perfectly identical, you can go to the source editor and click 'Preview', which will actually render an identical page without publishing.
We really do take neutrality seriously – not primarily for our image but because, empirically, not doing that destroys the quality of the project.
Lumelore@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 93 pts · 214d
Alternatively you can also right click, press Inspect, and then edit the HTML, which will look perfect and also not actually change anything.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works · 34 pts · 214d
right click? what is this the stone age
morto@piefed.social · 35 pts · 214d
the right click method goes directly into the selected elements
damnedfurry@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 213d
Can confirm.
CluckN@lemmy.world · -18 pts · 214d
Work a little for a change.
tomenzgg@midwest.social · 6 pts · 214d
I always favored
ctrl-shift-i.TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 213d
Inspect will be fine for basic text edits, but it'll get annoying compared to the VE or source editor if you're adding a lot of text or trying to do something semi-elaborate.
On the other hand, Inspect will work where the editor won't if the article is protected and you lack access.
Phantaminum@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 214d
I just want to say, thank you for your efforts!
waigl@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 214d
Or just press F12 and edit stuff right there.
Tuuktuuk@piefed.europe.pub · 1 pts · 132d
Well, semi-seriously. In the Russian-language wikipedia it is forbidden to talk of Ukraine as an independent country. I don't consider that terribly neutral. (They did have a vote about this, and because the Russian-language Wikipedia has more users from the Russia than from other countries, the Russian "opinion" about this won the vote. But it's absolutely not neutral anyway and with such a rule in place, it's ridiculous to claim that Wikipedia is really neutral. It is neutral-ish, though, yes.)
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 132d
I should've clarified "the English Wikipedia", since I can't speak for all the languages (although all the other ones I've regularly visited have been fine). The English Wikipedia sets its own policies and guidelines, and the other languages are free to choose their policies and guidelines (within the bounds of the WMF). Ours on neutrality is as follows:
Tuuktuuk@piefed.europe.pub · 2 pts · 132d
Oh, that's interesting!
I hadn't known that eqch language version has such a high level of autonomy.
Though, when reading that text, it also looks like there are Wikipedia-wide standards that the ruling on Russian-language Wikipedia is clearly breaking. (I noticed this when I was trying to edit an article about an electric locomotive built in Ukraine and used nowhere else than Ukraine. When I corrected phrasing "built on Ukraine" to "built in Ukraine", a error message popped up telling that " on Ukraine" has been decided as the only allowed form. And the grammatical rule is that of independent countries you always say "in". After the Orange Revolution in 2008 the Russia made an exception to this rule, because it wanted to prepare Russians for the invasion that then took place six years later, in 2014. But that exception was never accepted by Ukrainians, who continued using system that had been official since 1991. And it's quite crazy than in an article about Ukraine, written mainly for Ukrainians, in a language used by 40% of Ukrainians as their everyday language, you are forced to use grammatical forms that can only be used about a region but never about an independent county!)
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 131d
That's... interesting and concerning. I unfortunately lack the knowledge to find how that rule was implemented or how it slots into the Russian Wikipedia's policies. Keep in mind in that NPOV article that "Wikipedia" is shorthand for "the English Wikipedia" following the first sentence, so huge portions of that only inherently apply to English (even if there's probably a lot of overlap with others). There really are major languages I basically never visit, and Russian is one of them – only very occasionally for cross-linking a Russian topic we lack an article about. I'm totally inept about what goes on there.
PunnyName@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 214d
And it only further emboldens the idiots who think that Wikipedia is biased (largely against conservatives).
piccolo@sh.itjust.works · 52 pts · 214d
Wikipedia is biased against conservatives. Wikipedia requires citations.
can@sh.itjust.works · 35 pts · 214d
Reality has a well-known liberal bias
DmMacniel@feddit.org · 2 pts · 214d
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 214d
Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 213d
astropenguin5@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 214d
It might also be an HTML edit or something
lime@feddit.nu · 1 pts · 214d
yeah i hope
FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 214d
Not vandalism if it's a verified fact
lime@feddit.nu · 11 pts · 214d
it's not a verified fact if it doesn't have a citation
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 213d
What a time to find myself wishing there was a hell.
iamdisappoint@reddthat.com · 27 pts · 213d
lena@gregtech.eu · 19 pts · 214d
Vandalizing Wikipedia is for the weak
Slashme@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 213d
As a massive Wikipedia fan and a longtime editor, the comments in this post make me very happy. You're my people, Lemmy!
belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org · 15 pts · 214d
Only losers vandalize public good
That said: fuck you, Scott. rot in piss, bigot.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 214d
is it vandalism when it is true?
damnedfurry@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 213d
Yes, but this is an irrelevant question, because the part you're referring to is not true.
Cornflake@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 213d
I only ever knew the cartoonist for Dilbert. What did he do that's got folks hating on him? Were there some messed up comics that he published?
RubberElectrons@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 213d
He's been on the clearly wrong side of bad takes numerous times at this point.
2006: "were the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust exaggerated?"
2010s: racist shit about black people
2019 on: anti-masking drivel
2020: stop the steal
2023: livestream, a poll says 25% of black/brown folks feel a bit weird about if someone were to say "it's ok to be white", Scott says "best advice I can give to white ppl, get the hell away from black people, there's no fixing this."
Almost every newspaper was already close to breaking, they all basically drop him and syndication cancelled.
Me: Healthy, alive, & pointing and laughing at his dead, dumb ass.
Cornflake@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 213d
Yuck! Thanks for sharing, it's good to know these things
Tuuktuuk@piefed.europe.pub · 1 pts · 132d
Yeah, based on what the Wikipedia said and what you say in your comment, this quote by @anunusualrelic@lemmy.world summarizes it extremely efficiently:
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 9 pts · 213d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Adams#Political_views
Cornflake@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 213d
This was rather eye-opening. Thanks!
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 213d
The cartoonist for Dilbert was kind of fun, then he started to be kind of weird, then he became really odd, then he turned into a total weirdo, then he died. The end.
Cornflake@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 212d
Short and to the point explanation. Nice!
Furbag@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 213d
What a way to discover this dickhead finally kicked the bucket 😌
2026 off to a good start. Let's keep the ball rolling on shitty evil people dying.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 213d
The obituary I'm looking for will be on the front page.
Furbag@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 213d
Likewise.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 213d
I have never wished for a man's death, but I have read certain obituaries with great pleasure.
Ah, who am I kidding? I've wished for a lot of deaths. They'll all come true, eventually.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 213d
Hey, a fair number of them get paid to vandalise it.