Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

I’m one of those people you complain about. When I did deep research about DEI, I presented evidence and sources to people like you, including judges that I knew in my private life.

It seems you didn’t care, to a point that I had in my hand a document printed from a department of justice’s own website (about mothers’ own violence on their children, which is as high as men’s given the scope you decide to choose) and the person who in his public life is a judge, didn’t even bother discussing the thesis and just told me: “This document is false. You changed the figures before printing the document”.

You may say that Trump is bad for dismantling your administration, but you guys don’t care an inch about truth, evidence, sources, honesty, bad faith, or even for the number of children who are beaten to death by their mothers.

By changing the scope, you changed the effect. Unless you did every statistical validation here... Yeah. That reads exactly like data manipulation. t-distribution approaches standard normal distribution, when the degree of freedom increases. That's not something that anyone should ignore and give credit to. It's the same bullshit that Donald has repeatedly tried to do, to prove himself doing the right thing, even as everything falls apart.

Caring about the truth, requires caring about the methodology, and not just the conclusions.

Which shows:

- How much bad faith you have, assuming I argumented to a judge on a false hypothesis,

- Condescension to assume that I’m not a scientist who masters p-values,

- And ultimately, you confirm the hypothesis that you lead your research in bad faith, knowing full well the true level of violence from women and hiding it, which leads to more child deaths. You are accessory to criminality.

Your attitude confirm as well that it’s good this entire field of researched be defunded, it is a net win for science.