this post was submitted on 31 May 2024

1216 points (98.6% liked)

Memes

45661 readers

1548 users here now

Rules:

Be civil and nice.
Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1216

It has already been removed again (lemmy.ml)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Edit: Stickying some relevant "war reporting" from the comments to the post body, in a hopefully somewhat chronological order. Thanks for diving into the trenches everybody!

So the "and convicted felon" part of the screenshot that is highlighted was in the first sentence of the article about Donald Trump. After the jury verdict it was added and then removed again pretty much immediately several times over.

Then the article got editing restrictions and a warning about them (warning has been removed again):

During these restrictions there is a "RfC" (Request for Comments) thread held on the talk page of the article where anybody can voice their opinion on the matter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC_on_use_of_%22convicted_felon%22_in_first_sentence

Money quote:

There's a weird argument for **slight support**. Specifically because if we don't include it in the first paragraph somewhere, either the first sentence or in a new second sentence, there are going to be edit wars for the next 2-6 years. Guninvalid (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a second battlefield going on in the infobox on the side (this has also been removed again at this point in time):

The article can apparently only be edited by certain more trusted users at the moment, and warnings about editing "contentious" parts have been added to the article source:

To summarise, here is a map of the status quo on the ground roughly a day after the jury verdict:

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

No cause for panic. The letters just got scrambled over the inter-webs: he's not a convicted felon , he's a convinced melon. There are many varieties of melons of course, for example watermelons, bitter melons, and musk melons.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Pakistan and India pages: amateurs

[–] [email protected] 32 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I am all for mentioning his conviction in the 1st sentence, but the crowd saying it should go into the 2nd sentence make some good points.

Barely anyone gets to have "convicted felon" in their lead sentence. Firstly, it is poor style unless the person is only known because they did a crime, secondly, convicted felon can mean a lot of thing and should be specified. "Convicted of falsifying business records" is just so much more specific, and can later be added with "and election interference".

In any case, while the discussion is ongoing it has been included in a 2nd sentence, and the editors supporting to move it to first sentence seem to be the majority. ~~If only more of them would read the whole discussion, instead of just saying "Support due to being established fact".~~

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago

Yeah, it's in the third sentence of Richard Nixon's wiki page where it's stated he's the only President to resign from office. First sentence was political positions he held, second sentence about events while he was President, third sentence about him resigning.

So maybe the wikipedia page should follow that pattern and the first sentence be about positions he's held. The second sentence should be about his record as president... so something about Trump being President at the start of the Covid Pandemic (that killed over a million Americans), passed legislation to cut taxes for the wealthy, assassinated an Iranian General, tried to weaken NATO, was impeached for withholding military aid from Ukraine for personal gain, and was impeached again for trying to overthrow the government after losing the election. Then in the third sentence it would say he was later convicted on falsifying documents while covering up a scandal so he could be elected.

I feel like this would be fair.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"Trial's over. Donnie's a convicted felon. The judge out front should have told ya."

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

[+] [email protected] -19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Wiki is a circlejerk of people who have gotten their digital power and want to play pretend that they're doing something important, something that has gravitas. So they'll have a "discussion" for a week on whether the first president convicted of 34 felonies is a "significant" fact. This is what brain dead "neutrality" looks like.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not like they're arguing over something emergent like pulling a drowning man to shore or something though. And it's a better system than the closed encyclopedias where the facts are whatever the company determines. So while it sucks that we have to have a discussion to tell the trump supporters they can't censor Wikipedia (again) it's better than the alternatives.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He's right about arguing whether it is significant fact or not. It is absolutely a significant fact.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Of course it is. The point here is the process itself protects that neutrality. You can't skip it just because it's obvious to 2/3rds of us.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago

It's already locked and even the talk page is restricted. Past that Wikipedia won't even let me log in to participate.

Not going to be surprised when this magically disappears.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

He's also THE LIVING INCARNATION OF THE CHRIST and shit. don't mock the incontinence diapers, that shit's not funny.

load more comments