In case anyone still has a doubt about wiki’s leanings
Wikipedia is pure cope, just listing Russian ‘‘war crimes’’, calls Donetsk and Lugansk ‘‘quasi-breakway puppet states’’ and it’s people ‘‘seperatists’’ while the obvious ones who should be called like that (cough Kosovo and Metohija, Taiwan, Isn’t real cough) are not called like that. And then Russian ‘‘partial success’’ in battles, ‘‘brave or tactical withdrawl of Ukrainians’’ ‘‘Ukrainian defenders’’ ‘‘Russian occupied torritories’’ while no one of 500 USA bases isn’t occupying half of this planet USA ‘‘military intervention’’ or ‘‘military operation’’’ while it’s Russian ‘‘aggression’’ or ‘‘invasion’’ whole page dedicated to killed Russian generals in this war etc
Let’s ask the libs what means if the military operation has 100:1 rato between killed and captured.
Result: Ongoing
I mean if they said it started at all, they might as well call it ongoing now
Ukrainian forces advance steadily. Westwards, that is.
Just things the best army in the world does. Inflicts 1000+ KIA on the enemy while suffering none itself during the retreat that is actually an offensive which only loses territory. Yes, this makes sense.
The battles in the great copium wars tend to have rather special outcomes.
The mongol hordes are stopped at the gates of Kiev! Reddit’s batallion counterattack will deal the final blow
Well, just update it with more neutral sources. The English Wikipedia leans towards whatever most contributing English speakers lean, obviously, but I doubt they’ll frown upon fresh information from any source.
Edit: okay, it doesn’t work like that, thanks, I understand.
More neutral sources are typically classified as untrustworthy or are even banned by the editors/moderators in control of the site. They do indeed frown upon fresh information when it contradicts their chosen narrative.
As an editor of Wikipedia and Wiktionary for 14+ years now, they absolutely do frown upon this and will throw a temper tantrum, up to and including banning your account, IP, and locking the page with revisions back to whatever version they most approve of. If they lack these powers, they’ll start an edit war and use whatever sway they do have to force a lockdown and revision of the page.
This typically occurs on the most politically charged pages, but it can and will occur anywhere else that someone decides to throw down a claim. I have done edits mostly on the subject of linguistics (such as adding IPA pronunciations, adding new word entries and translations in other languages), cleaning up graffiti, ensuring standards of editing are met, correcting mistakes/misspellings, etc., and have still had to deal with pedantry.
This is mostly wrong, with only some exceptions to this rule. There’s so many articles on Wikipedia it might seem like you can edit it freely, but the numbers and structure of wikipedia do not show this at all.
Wikipedia is a tool of imperialism that is completely overrun with US-aligned interest groups from the admins to the prolific users; you can read more here: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia (and then head on to the discussion page where there is further reading because there’s just so much to cover we couldn’t even fit it all!).
Ukrainians got that Marvel plot armor I guess
I don’t blame Wikipedia because it’s a free wiki anyone can edit. This entire war is such a massive propaganda campaign that you can’t tell me that the feds aren’t actually involved in making sure it’s portrayed in a certain way. Hell check the discussion sections on any of the Nazi groups and see how much of a fist fight it is between regular users and weirdos who want to downplay it.
A lot of these articles require a reliable source, so as long as it’s cited it’s fine. The fact it clearly bolds “Ukrainian claim” as well is suggesting that they know it’s BS, but they don’t have better numbers.
If anyone here believes they have better numbers, I highly recommend you look into Wikipedia’s reliable sources reference. Again I’ll point out that it clearly says “Ukrainian claim”, so it seems like the reliable source they pulled from is noting that this is Ukrainian (propaganda).
