https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 5485#p5485
....but arguably deserves his own thread for being such a source of entertainment, and crucial public knowledge of what Wikipedia is (and never will be). The best Wikipedians, the ones most likely to destroy it while believing they are helping it, and are those who think they're modern day Aristotles.
Here's his attempt to refine the logic of Guy Chapman on the fitness of Trump supporters to edit Wikipedia.......
They're virtually into McCarthyism territory now."If you can't admit he's dishonest, you must be getting your information from unreliable sources and thus fail a fundamental skill required here, how to vet sources for reliability. That lack of competence, not just your political POV, makes you unfit to edit our political articles."
There is one obvious problem with this statement. Trump aside, politicians in general, do lie. What any respected political commentator will tell you, is that all Trump did, was take an already well known phenomena (being totally truthful with the electorate does not typically equate to electoral success) and take it to its logical conclusion.
Trump's lies are huge, and he is unapologetic. Hilary Clinton's lies were subtle, and her apologies, where they even occur, were insincere. Whether the Wikipedians will admit it or not, many voter's ability to tell the difference between these two approaches, precisely because they do consult the right sources, is a big reason why he won.
And he did win, fuck the popular vote, it is irrelevant, as any respected political commentator would tell you. Another example of how Trump took a well known political reality and maximised it to his advantage.
In short, a fundamental skill in writing about politics, is understanding politics and politicians. Nobody who is capable of writing statements like the above, has any skill whatsoever in that regard.
The better question to ask prospective Wikipedia editors, is "Do you understand why Trump won?" Answer that well, and you are clearly someone who is capable of vetting sources. It is the received wisdom of those sources, before and after Trump, that matters of fact only weekly affect electoral outcomes. What matters more, is the feels. Clinton's pernicious lies made people feel worse than Trump's massive whoppers.
Wikipedia will, of ccourse, never be asking anyone if they accept Clinton is dishonest. They ask the question of Trump supporters because they want to believe they are all stupid. And that is pretty fucking stupid.