136
One Woman’s Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia
(getpocket.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
136 points (100.0% liked)
technology
22971 readers
40 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
- Ways to run Microsoft/Adobe and more on Linux
- The Ultimate FOSS Guide For Android
- Great libre software on Windows
- Hey you, the lib still using Chrome. Read this post!
Rules:
- 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
- 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
- 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
- 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
- 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
- 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
- 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
She cannot believe that an innovator in mass murder would have tried to protect the Jews and other supposed subhumans his troops rounded up. She checks the footnotes. The claim is attributed to War of Extermination, a compendium of academic essays originally published in 1995. Coffman knows the book is legit, because she happens to have a copy on loan from the library. When she goes to the cited page, she finds a paragraph that appears to confirm all the Wikipedia article’s wild claims. But then she reads the first sentence of the next paragraph: "This is, of course, nonsense."
lmao
Being smug to fascist apologists is actually good though
I might be misreading things, but it's the fascist apologist wikipedia editor that wrote up a summary of correct things then smugged all over it calling it incorrect.
The way I interpreted it, the wikipedia writers copied an argument from the book which was apparently glorifying a mass murderer as some sort of hero who tried to save jews and other persecuted people from being murdered, but then the same wikipedia writers omitted the next paragraph, where the author of the book calls the argument he just talked about nonsense.
I'm guessing that "appears to confirm" really means that the book described the claim, but some people can misinterpret stating an argument as the same thing as making or affirming an argument. This is some advanced quote mining/cherry-picking the likes of witch the world has never seen before.