You must log in or # to comment.
I only ever knew the cartoonist for Dilbert. What did he do that’s got folks hating on him? Were there some messed up comics that he published?
The cartoonist for Dilbert was kind of fun, then he started to be kind of weird, then he became really odd, then he turned into a total weirdo, then he died. The end.
Short and to the point explanation. Nice!
He’s been on the clearly wrong side of bad takes numerous times at this point.
2006: “were the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust exaggerated?”
2010s: racist shit about black people
2019 on: anti-masking drivel
2020: stop the steal
2023: livestream, a poll says 25% of black/brown folks feel a bit weird about if someone were to say “it’s ok to be white”, Scott says “best advice I can give to white ppl, get the hell away from black people, there’s no fixing this.”
Almost every newspaper was already close to breaking, they all basically drop him and syndication cancelled.
Me: Healthy, alive, & pointing and laughing at his dead, dumb ass.
Yeah, based on what the Wikipedia said and what you say in your comment, this quote by @[email protected] summarizes it extremely efficiently:
The cartoonist for Dilbert was kind of fun, then he started to be kind of weird, then he became really odd, then he turned into a total weirdo, then he died. The end.
Yuck! Thanks for sharing, it’s good to know these things
don’t vandalize wikipedia :( editors work very hard for no pay
I can confirm as a longtime editor that:
-
I find this shit funny as hell in the short term, but
-
It does make our work harder.
-
If you really need to take a screenshot for the meme, please at least just use the VisualEditor, which is a what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) editor that will allow for a near-identical screenshot without actually publishing. If it’s not perfectly identical, you can go to the source editor and click ‘Preview’, which will actually render an identical page without publishing.
-
We really do take neutrality seriously – not primarily for our image but because, empirically, not doing that destroys the quality of the project.
We really do take neutrality seriously
Well, semi-seriously. In the Russian-language wikipedia it is forbidden to talk of Ukraine as an independent country. I don’t consider that terribly neutral. (They did have a vote about this, and because the Russian-language Wikipedia has more users from the Russia than from other countries, the Russian “opinion” about this won the vote. But it’s absolutely not neutral anyway and with such a rule in place, it’s ridiculous to claim that Wikipedia is really neutral. It is neutral-ish, though, yes.)
I should’ve clarified “the English Wikipedia”, since I can’t speak for all the languages (although all the other ones I’ve regularly visited have been fine). The English Wikipedia sets its own policies and guidelines, and the other languages are free to choose their policies and guidelines (within the bounds of the WMF). Ours on neutrality is as follows:
Oh, that’s interesting!
I hadn’t known that eqch language version has such a high level of autonomy.
Though, when reading that text, it also looks like there are Wikipedia-wide standards that the ruling on Russian-language Wikipedia is clearly breaking. (I noticed this when I was trying to edit an article about an electric locomotive built in Ukraine and used nowhere else than Ukraine. When I corrected phrasing “built on Ukraine” to “built in Ukraine”, a error message popped up telling that " on Ukraine" has been decided as the only allowed form. And the grammatical rule is that of independent countries you always say “in”. After the Orange Revolution in 2008 the Russia made an exception to this rule, because it wanted to prepare Russians for the invasion that then took place six years later, in 2014. But that exception was never accepted by Ukrainians, who continued using system that had been official since 1991. And it’s quite crazy than in an article about Ukraine, written mainly for Ukrainians, in a language used by 40% of Ukrainians as their everyday language, you are forced to use grammatical forms that can only be used about a region but never about an independent county!)
a error message popped up telling that " on Ukraine" has been decided as the only allowed form.
That’s… interesting and concerning. I unfortunately lack the knowledge to find how that rule was implemented or how it slots into the Russian Wikipedia’s policies. Keep in mind in that NPOV article that “Wikipedia” is shorthand for “the English Wikipedia” following the first sentence, so huge portions of that only inherently apply to English (even if there’s probably a lot of overlap with others). There really are major languages I basically never visit, and Russian is one of them – only very occasionally for cross-linking a Russian topic we lack an article about. I’m totally inept about what goes on there.
Alternatively you can also right click, press Inspect, and then edit the HTML, which will look perfect and also not actually change anything.
right click? what is this the stone age
f12the right click method goes directly into the selected elements
-
And it only further emboldens the idiots who think that Wikipedia is biased (largely against conservatives).
Wikipedia is biased against conservatives. Wikipedia requires citations.
