• 0x0@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    the ridiculously detailed

    An encyclopedia calling an article ridiculously detailed is… interesting.

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Kinda burying the lede on that complaint…

      and 321 edits on the ridiculously detailed International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both of these articles were, at one time, strongly biased in favor of Russia.

      Wikipedia cares more about bias than* ridiculous details, especially when the ridiculous detail is there to put bias into the article

        • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          What is the difference between including ridiculous amounts of detail to bias the article, and superfluous biased details that still end up with a biased article?

          Seems like a distinction without a difference.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think their point was that since he got Russian government permission to use Russian gov media, and he wrote a very detailed (although very biased in favour of Russia) article, then they think he is receiving assistance from the russian government to push Russian propaganda.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      reads almost like it’s talking about the situation at hand having been extensively and thoroughly documented to the point of it being impossible to “be wrong” to me