snozzberrypatch
snozzberrypatch t1_jaycq1i wrote
Reply to comment by okwaitno in [OC] Wikipedia Edits by Day, 2001–2010 by ptgorman
What general topic do you have expert knowledge about, just out of curiosity?
snozzberrypatch t1_jaw33q4 wrote
Reply to comment by chugga_fan in [OC] Wikipedia Edits by Day, 2001–2010 by ptgorman
Keep watching OANN dude. The ultimate source for all of your confirmation bias needs.
You can mention all the news sources you want, the fact is there is nothing on the left that is even remotely equivalent to something like OANN, at least not that I'm aware of, or if it does exist it's on the extreme fringe and doesn't attract a lot of viewers. You people treat OANN like it's fuckin Reuters. Pretty sad.
snozzberrypatch t1_javsbhc wrote
Reply to comment by kalesaji in [OC] Wikipedia Edits by Day, 2001–2010 by ptgorman
There's enough for everyone. I'm sure you could become a Reddit mod when you grow up if you study hard and eat your vegetables.
snozzberrypatch t1_javajvf wrote
Reply to comment by AtypicalSpaniard in [OC] Wikipedia Edits by Day, 2001–2010 by ptgorman
Better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission. Just register an account and edit. As long as you're doing good work, no one will care.
snozzberrypatch t1_jauwlb4 wrote
Reply to comment by chugga_fan in [OC] Wikipedia Edits by Day, 2001–2010 by ptgorman
Lmao you're putting MSNBC and HuffPost in the same category as OANN? Sorry, but you're a fucking moron. Hopelessly brainwashed by the propaganda.
Do MSNBC and HuffPost have a bias? Sure. But at least they don't report conspiracy theories as is they're facts. There's a difference between having a partisan bias that colors your reporting, and reporting blatant falsehoods about how the election was stolen and Trump is still the president.
Get a grip dude. You're blinded by the brainwashing.
snozzberrypatch t1_jausb3s wrote
Reply to comment by chugga_fan in [OC] Wikipedia Edits by Day, 2001–2010 by ptgorman
>If it isn't left-wing it's instantly overthrown from the reasonable scale if it's at all political.
There it is. You don't like Wikipedia because it doesn't let you push your agenda. I typically stay far away from political articles, partly because I don't buy into political theater, and partly because I'm not attracted to drama. With that said... considering how much disinformation, brainwashing, and propaganda has been generated by the American right wing in the last decade or so, it's no surprise that a right winger such as yourself would feel frustrated, since all of your media sources aren't considered reliable (and rightly so) and many of your closely-held beliefs are probably dismissed as nonsense by many other editors.
It may be true that Wikipedia has a slight left wing bias, mostly owing to the fact that writing encyclopedia articles is a scholarly pursuit and therefore WP editors tend to be educated (and left wing folks are statically more likely to be highly educated than right wing folks), but my guess is that any actual bias on WP is a lot less than what someone in your position perceives it as.
snozzberrypatch t1_jaum02r wrote
Reply to comment by chugga_fan in [OC] Wikipedia Edits by Day, 2001–2010 by ptgorman
I disagree. If you've got sources to back up what you're trying to add, and you're not trying to push some kind of agenda, then it's quite easy to add whatever content you want, even if other editors don't like your content for whatever reason. Wikipedia is about documenting knowledge, not righting great wrongs or painting your favorite politician in the best light possible.
snozzberrypatch t1_jaulolv wrote
Reply to comment by ramblinginternetnerd in [OC] Wikipedia Edits by Day, 2001–2010 by ptgorman
Can't speak for other admins, but I have a real job. I'm also not a particularly active admin anymore.
snozzberrypatch t1_jas3rfv wrote
Reply to comment by HiddenCity in [OC] Wikipedia Edits by Day, 2001–2010 by ptgorman
It's still really easy to edit Wikipedia, if you're actually being productive. If you just want to add "HAHA JOHNNY HAS A SMALL DICK" to an article, then yes, it's more difficult nowadays.
Sauce: am a Wikipedia admin
snozzberrypatch t1_iy3r50b wrote
Reply to comment by unlikemike123 in eli5 How is computer memory deleted? by unlikemike123
There isn't really any such thing as "deleting" memory so that it becomes "empty". Individual memory locations can either be a 0 or a 1 at all times, there are no other options. You could write all zeros into the memory but that's still data. There is no way to "clear" a memory location such that it's neither a 0 nor a 1. That's why it's most efficient to delete a file by just freeing up those memory locations but not actually overwriting them, unless you're concerned about Russian spies getting your hard drive and restoring deleted data.
snozzberrypatch t1_jb0an83 wrote
Reply to comment by okwaitno in [OC] Wikipedia Edits by Day, 2001–2010 by ptgorman
Sure, that's totally understandable. However, in over a decade of editing Wikipedia, I've never ever ever heard someone refer to a WP admin as a "mod". Wikipedia does not have moderators. The purpose of an admin is not to moderate or review the content that is being written. In fact, when it comes to pure content decisions, the opinion of an admin is not given any more weight than anyone else's opinion.
If you've edited there for as long as you said, you'd probably know all of that already. So, not that it matters, but I kinda think you're not really a regular contributor.