Comment on Wave of (Open Street Map) Vandalism in South KoreaparentComments−lolc9moAsk Wikipedia how they are dealing with this shit. Openstreetmap is a rather unlikely target, so it's news.−akimbostrawman9mothey aren't because they are long fully captured−lolc9moWikipedia is fully captured by vandalism?−otabdeveloper49moAsk Wikipedia how they are dealing with this shit.They aren't. Wikipedia has been taken over by special interest groups and political agencies for a long, long time now.−scraptor9moSo how are the special interest groups keeping their enemies out?−otabdeveloper49moSame as it is everywhere else, collusion and nepotism.Wikipedia editors are a special clique.−port119moExceptional claims require exceptional evidence?−otabdeveloper49moWhere is the exceptional claim?If anything, the preposterous idea that Wikipedia is somehow the only resource immune to shilling and political influence is the exceptional claim.−shortrounddev2OP9moNo; the burden of proof lies with the affirmative. To require someone to prove that they are NOT guilty of corruption is unfair (and also irrational)
Comments
Ask Wikipedia how they are dealing with this shit. Openstreetmap is a rather unlikely target, so it's news.
they aren't because they are long fully captured
Wikipedia is fully captured by vandalism?
They aren't. Wikipedia has been taken over by special interest groups and political agencies for a long, long time now.
So how are the special interest groups keeping their enemies out?
Same as it is everywhere else, collusion and nepotism.
Wikipedia editors are a special clique.
Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence?
Where is the exceptional claim?
If anything, the preposterous idea that Wikipedia is somehow the only resource immune to shilling and political influence is the exceptional claim.
No; the burden of proof lies with the affirmative. To require someone to prove that they are NOT guilty of corruption is unfair (and also irrational)