site banner

Friday Fun Thread for February 14, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

To anyone who says that Wikipedia isn't ideologically captured, allow me to present exhibit A.

Please keep CW to either of the CW threads!

Sorry about that, it was meant more as a joke. Happy to delete if necessary.

Eh, no reason not to keep it up, I think.

How is this evidence that Wikipedia is ideologically captured? It seems like a rather banal description of terminology with little editorialization. Is there something in particular about the article beyond its mere existence that makes you think otherwise?

In contrast, the 'Same-sex marriage' section of the 'Christian views on marriage' article seems more like evidence of ideological capture than the article you linked, as the listing out of individual denominations that recognize same-sex marriage while grouping opposition is pretty clearly an editorial decision to make the former seem more popular than the latter.

The fact that Wikipedia is treating the concept of a "queerplatonic relationship" (i.e. a friendship) with deadly seriousness, without even a one-paragraph "criticism" section saying something to the effect of "The concept has been criticised by conservative commentators on the grounds that it is functionally indistinguishable from ordinary platonic friendship in all particulars."

Has it been formally criticized in a published source? If so, have you tried adding it to the article with the appropriate citations? I don't see any attempt in the page's history.

The article is not edit protected as far as I can tell. Go ahead and add that section, if you believe it true. As far as I could tell by reading the edit history, there were no such passages reverted by devious ideologically captured admins, yet (although there was one user aptly named EndWOKENESS who replaced the article with "lorem ipsum" twice and was reverted).

"Article is one-sided because no opponent with IQ above 80 ever bothered editing it" is not the same as "ideologically captured".