bn-l a day ago

Is this dailymail style editorial appropriate for Wikipedia?

treetalker a day ago

To play the devil's advocate: citing Laura Loomer's mug as an example is a slander to Mar-a-Lago–faced folks everywhere. Her "signature look" is best considered as an anti-model for future surgeons and operees.

cobbzilla a day ago

I frankly didn’t know much about Kristi Noam until the most recent South Park piqued my curiosity. I found this fascinating gem of an article diving into a wikipedia rabbit hole.

moralestapia a day ago

Despicable, really.

So now it's suddenly ok to ridicule the appearance of women Weren't they supposed to be their allies? What a bunch of sc*mbags.

Never giving a cent to Wikipedia ever, as it is clear it is now a political platform, away from its intended purpose, and for one very specific country.

  • pavel_lishin a day ago

    How much have you given in the past?

    • moralestapia a day ago

      That doesn't make any difference.

      Weird.

      • pavel_lishin a day ago

        It does. If you've never donated to Wikipedia, then saying you'll never donate means nothing, as you weren't likely to start anyway. It would have all the weight of a vegan telling us they're going to start boycotting a local steakhouse.

        • moralestapia 20 hours ago

          Me donating or not donating does not make Wikipedia more or less political.

          It's so dumb that I have to explicitly state this, but apparently is necessary.

          • pavel_lishin 10 hours ago

            But it does mean that your previous statement doesn't mean anything.

            It's like me pledging to stop donating to the Urbandale High School Band Program. I've never donated before, and I never planned to anyway, so why even make the statement?

  • rediscovery 16 hours ago

    The article linked doesn't ridicule anyone.

  • bediger4000 a day ago

    Very strange! This article had the opposite effect on me. I just donated.