“In early 2014, there were clashes between rival groups of protesters in the Ukrainian city of Odesa, during the pro-Russian unrest that followed the Ukrainian Revolution.[21][22] The street clashes were between pro-revolution (‘pro-Maidan’) groups and anti-revolution (‘anti-Maidan’), pro-Russian groups. There were far-right elements on both sides.[23] Violence erupted on 2 May, when a ‘United Ukraine’ rally was attacked by pro-Russian separatists. Stones, petrol bombs and gunfire were exchanged. The first shots were by a pro-Russian gunman, who shot dead a pro-Ukraine protester.[24] Another pro-Ukraine activist and four pro-Russia activists were shot dead in the clashes that followed.[25][26][27][28] The pro-Ukraine protesters then moved to dismantle a pro-Russian protest camp in Kulykove Pole, causing some pro-Russian activists to barricade themselves in the nearby Unions House. Shots were fired by both sides, and the pro-Ukraine protesters attempted to storm the building, which caught fire as the two groups threw petrol bombs at each other.[29][30][31]”
Shhhh! Don’t like thinks they don’t agree with! they’ll link Conservapedia Prolewiki, college makes you liberal fascist, and facts that contradict their world views are globalist lies western propaganda (ignore they post in the west and don’t do anything for the nations they admire)
And if you mention you can edit wikipedia if you think an article is biased? Banned. (Watch, this comment will be down voted and deleted for calling this out.)
Hey I was right! And they justify it with more of the same thought terminating cliches! They’re totally not the same as the conservatives, hating facts that counter them.
I’m sure I’ll have a hit piece on me on their wiki, like both Conservapedia and Prolewiki do. But they’re not the same!!
Horseshoe theory is when people use facts now. Sounds like liberals when people call them out. People really get angry when you confront biases. “anti-ML snark” lol. left unity is when you reject facts that disagree with your world views! Good to know somehow all of socialism is ruined when one person online doesn’t click on a wiki made out of spite they can’t get edited right.
Gonna donate $5 for every downvote and “anti-reality snark” comment, when this gets removed.
And wikipedia super editors are known to be western, neoliberal eurocentrists. Why the fuck would you expect them to favor a factual analysis over whatever the neolib consensus is as long as it’s sourced with a NYT op-ed?
There are plenty of NATOpedia articles that any anarchist worth their salt would show to be liberal-biased or contain outright capitalist or imperialist lies. MLs would point to those same articles, plus a few more. This type of anti-ML snark sabotages all socialist tendencies.
You have to love how they shit talk wikipedia from which you can actually follow references to your heart’s content but are completely ok with the original post which doesn’t have a single reference lol. Ofcourse the main difference is not credibility but whether or not what is being written agrees with their world view.
“In early 2014, there were clashes between rival groups of protesters in the Ukrainian city of Odesa, during the pro-Russian unrest that followed the Ukrainian Revolution.[21][22] The street clashes were between pro-revolution (‘pro-Maidan’) groups and anti-revolution (‘anti-Maidan’), pro-Russian groups. There were far-right elements on both sides.[23] Violence erupted on 2 May, when a ‘United Ukraine’ rally was attacked by pro-Russian separatists. Stones, petrol bombs and gunfire were exchanged. The first shots were by a pro-Russian gunman, who shot dead a pro-Ukraine protester.[24] Another pro-Ukraine activist and four pro-Russia activists were shot dead in the clashes that followed.[25][26][27][28] The pro-Ukraine protesters then moved to dismantle a pro-Russian protest camp in Kulykove Pole, causing some pro-Russian activists to barricade themselves in the nearby Unions House. Shots were fired by both sides, and the pro-Ukraine protesters attempted to storm the building, which caught fire as the two groups threw petrol bombs at each other.[29][30][31]”
Source
If we wanted western disinfo we’d have gone to Wikipedia ourselves, not all of us like to keep our knowledge as surface level as possible.
This is the type of information that I would not search for in English Wikipedia, that has a pro-Western and pro-Ukrainian bias.
Russian Wikipedia lists the same information.
Source: Wikipedia?
Shhhh! Don’t like thinks they don’t agree with! they’ll link
ConservapediaProlewiki, college makes youliberalfascist, and facts that contradict their world views areglobalist lieswestern propaganda (ignore they post in the west and don’t do anything for the nations they admire)And if you mention you can edit wikipedia if you think an article is biased? Banned. (Watch, this comment will be down voted and deleted for calling this out.)
Hey I was right! And they justify it with more of the same thought terminating cliches! They’re totally not the same as the conservatives, hating facts that counter them.
I’m sure I’ll have a hit piece on me on their wiki, like both Conservapedia and Prolewiki do. But they’re not the same!!
Horseshoe theory is when people use facts now. Sounds like liberals when people call them out. People really get angry when you confront biases. “anti-ML snark” lol. left unity is when you reject facts that disagree with your world views! Good to know somehow all of socialism is ruined when one person online doesn’t click on a wiki made out of spite they can’t get edited right.
Gonna donate $5 for every downvote and “anti-reality snark” comment, when this gets removed.
Editing an article doesn’t guarantee it will stay, and of course you’ll be downvoted for trolling and promoting horseshoe theory
And wikipedia super editors are known to be western, neoliberal eurocentrists. Why the fuck would you expect them to favor a factual analysis over whatever the neolib consensus is as long as it’s sourced with a NYT op-ed?
You have to love how they shit talk wikipedia from which you can actually follow references to your heart’s content but are completely ok with the original post which doesn’t have a single reference lol. Ofcourse the main difference is not credibility but whether or not what is being written agrees with their world view.
“My sources didn’t meet standards for factual reporting and removed, they’re the problem and not my links! Not my fault my truth isn’t reality!”
Donating $5 for each downvote <3
Suit yourself, but they don’t need your money because the oligarchy has already covered their costs.
Their editors don’t either, bc you can go into the edit page and find a bunch of disclosures of sponsored edits
Removed by mod