|
|
|
|
|
by talldayo
589 days ago
|
|
> In a related move, the platform’s editors recently voted to declare the Anti-Defamation League “generally unreliable” on the subject, adding it to their list of banned and partially banned sources. Kinda surprising it didn't happen earlier. The ADL ruined their image when they stopped concerning themselves with defamation and started going after political opposition. Once you dip your toes into the nationalist politics cesspool, there really is no going back. |
|
> Kinda surprising it didn't happen earlier. The ADL ruined their image when they stopped concerning themselves with defamation and started going after political opposition. Once you dip your toes into the nationalist politics cesspool, there really is no going back.
Wikipedia still considers the ADL reliable for "going after political opposition" in the "nationalist politics cesspool": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per....
It's super clear that, on Wikipedia, "the rules of the game became the game." Content arguments are won through pretty biased debates behind the scenes on the "reliability" of sources.