this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2026
613 points (91.9% liked)

Socialism

6908 readers
68 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] G4Z@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

community consensus once was that iraq had wmd’s

It really wasn't.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

here's wikipedia's consensus still framing the government's wmd claims as 'assertions' while uncritically repeating them years after the iraqi invasion: https://wayback.qa-archive-it.org/all/20080911173302/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The foia showed the government had doubts before the invasion -- wikipedia didn't.

[–] G4Z@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

Okay..?

Just because wiki says that doesn't mean that was the community consensus, millions of people protested that war. In my country it is still the largest protest in history.

[–] pinto@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Facts hurt their feelings, that's why they resist wikipedia

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 0 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

We're not discussing the general public's consensus.

We're discussing Wikipedia's consensus driven decision process and why it makes Wikipedia an unreliable source.

Wikipedia said that there was consensus and anyone w eyes and ears knew that was bullshit -- as you've pointed out -- but people still want to use Wikipedia as a source anyways.