←back to thread

Tim Bray on Grokipedia

(www.tbray.org)
175 points Bogdanp | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mlmonkey[dead post] ◴[] No.45777286[source]
[flagged]
exe34 ◴[] No.45777332[source]
Could you share some of the references you tried to use here? It might be interesting to see the quality that they refused to accept towards overturning their narrative.
replies(1): >>45777435 #
ares623 ◴[] No.45777435[source]
OP has a chance to be vindicated. Surely they will take it?
replies(1): >>45777569 #
mlmonkey ◴[] No.45777569[source]
Since you insisted. This is from a couple of years ago, and I have moved on to never donating to Wikipedia again, so take it FWIW.

I pointed out that India had reduced extreme poverty from ~16% in 2013 to ~2% in 2022. This is directly from a World Bank report: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/0997221042225345... One would think this would be reliable? One would be wrong since this is deemed to be "pro Modi". Another was the success of India's mission to bring piped water to every household in India (a luxury we take for granted in the West). There's a live dashboard maintained by the Water Ministry of India: https://ejalshakti.gov.in/jjmreport/JJMIndia.aspx Apparently it's a biased source. :shrug:

Other examples include the fact that Indian government paid for millions of households to construct toilets over the last 10 years. Or that millions of houses were constructed in villages, fully paid for by the government, during the same period. Or that the government also paid for rural folks to switch to gas-burning stoves instead of wood-, coal- or cowdung- burdning stoves. I'm too lazy to look up the references now, but you can find them with easy searching.

Surely you can't deny that Wikipedia is biased against the so-called "right" side of the political spectrum, and biased towards the "left"?

replies(2): >>45777720 #>>45783323 #
ares623 ◴[] No.45777720[source]
OP delivered. I'm not a Wikipedia editor so I don't know what kind of sources are allowed, but just on a gut-feel, that worldbank.org source seems okay?
replies(2): >>45778556 #>>45783300 #
1. wtfwhateven ◴[] No.45783300[source]
He didn't deliver. He should just link to the actual revisions that were reverted. The fact he refuses to is telling.

He was definitely not banned as a result of his story, he definitely did something egregious (such as repeatedly insulting people on talk pages or repeated vandalism) or was editing without an account and he is portraying a typical residential IP block ban as him being banned for "wrong think". It is purely dishonest.