this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2025
306 points (99.7% liked)

politics

26198 readers
2443 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Trying to sow confusion amongst sources of truth. It fails again and again.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tired_n_bored@lemmy.world 26 points 12 hours ago

Wikipedia is one of the few treasures of the internet. He can go fuck himself

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 11 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I don't even get how xitter stays online. Didn't truth social take all their nutters?

[–] Sprawl@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Unfortunately the media, celebrities, and corporations still use that crap, so others do too.

[–] Alloi@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

never once used it, anyone i knew personally who used it was kind of vapid, self obsessed, or had a crippling only fans addiction.

not my kind of joint, lol.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 7 points 19 hours ago

Enshittification incarnate

[–] Thorry@feddit.org 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well I'm going to start my own Wikipedia, with blackjack and hookers!

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 9 points 21 hours ago

And ketamine?

[–] whiwake@sh.itjust.works 75 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Cribbing means… ripping off? Copying?

[–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 37 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Yep, did they not call a piece of paper you could copy off of during a test a crib sheet where you went to school? Or has that fallen out of use?

[–] mormund@feddit.org 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Friendly reminder that not everyone is American or in the anglosphere in general.

[–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 19 hours ago

Yeah, that’s why I asked. I didn’t want to assume

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm not sure that's an American thing as I've never heard of it. I assumed it was a European thing.

[–] mormund@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, a UK thing maybe. In German it would obviously be a Spickzettel and spicken, respectively.

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

I am the official spokesman of the UK, never heard of it

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

I am the official spokesman of the UK, never heard of it

Oh man, you may need to turn in your Brit Card to the King. The term was likely born in Britain, and used as a central part of the UK's success in WWII.

The usage "crib" was adapted from a slang term referring to cheating (e.g., "I cribbed my answer from your test paper"). A "crib" originally was a literal or interlinear translation of a foreign-language text—usually a Latin or Greek text—that students might be assigned to translate from the original language. The term "crib" originated at Bletchley Park, the British World War II decryption operation.

source

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 1 points 1 hour ago

Like the office of Prime minister, the post of official spokesman is a revolving door and everyone leaves in disgrace

[–] klemptor@startrek.website 2 points 23 hours ago

I'm American and I knew what it was, so it's a thing here too.

[–] whiwake@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 day ago (14 children)

This is the first time I’m hearing it. I’m not exactly young…

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Nope, we called that a cheat sheet in Australia.

Likewise for copying, we called that copying.

[–] Medic8teMe@lemmy.ca 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Same in Canada. Crib is a card game. Cribbing is blocking that goes under heavy things or stuff that rolls to keep it stable or lifted.

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 45 points 1 day ago

Man Goebbels would be creaming his jeans if he knew of the propaganda potential that Musk and Trump have at their disposal.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 5 points 21 hours ago

Billionaires gonna plunder.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

I don't understand what exact problem Grokipedia ^[1]^ is even trying to solve.

References

  1. Type: Text. Publisher: [Type: Article. Title: "Elon Musk's version of Wikipedia is 'cribbing' information from the real one: report". Author: "Robert Davis". Publisher: "Raw Story Media, Inc.". Published: 2025-10-27T22:23-05:00. Accessed: 2025-10-28T02:57Z. URI: https://www.rawstory.com/elon-musk-2674238153/.]. Location: ¶1.

    […]"Grokipedia"[…]

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 88 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The 'problem' where Wikipedia doesn't allow conservatives to edit in propaganda and disinformation as much as they'd like.

[–] Godort@lemmy.ca 37 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yeah, this exactly. It's really hard to find actually credible sources for many of the rightwing "facts" they want to publish.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What do you mean? There are literally thousands of memes on Facebook, that back up every single claim. How is that not enough for you people? /s

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You joke but their goal is to replace every institution with a ministry of truth. They've done it with the media, they're doing it with government institutions that used to be independent and evidence based, and they won't stop until they control all information.

[–] SaraTonin@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago

I wonder if they allow Grok itself as a source

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

They feel it to be true. What more evidence do you need?

[–] tuff_wizard@aussie.zone 6 points 1 day ago

So basically what grok was trying to solve.

[–] OctopusNemeses@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

They have more influence on Wikipedia than people realize. Take note of how often wiki pages for famous people will say they are Jewish in the first two sentences.

Now trace the origin of these edits. Often it came from a username such as "OdinWolf88". Now look at their edit history. These accounts do nothing but add "he/she is Jewish" to the first two sentences of peoples Wikipedia pages.

That and they troll the pages of right wing mass murders and terrorist attacks.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

Reality. They don't like reality.

[–] RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago (4 children)

There is already the Conservapedia doing the same thing. It allows YouTube and Twitter as sources. I once saw a sentence like "liberals believe _______" and the source was a tweet with like 40 likes.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

There is already the Conservapedia doing the same thing. […]

Interestingly, the site is timing out for me right now ^[1]^, but I've been able to find some interesting archived information: for example, they have a page titled "Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia" ^[2]^. To say the least, I take issue with some of their rationale.

References

  1. Type: Anecdote (Screenshot). Accessed: 2025-10-29T03:51Z.

  2. Type: Archive (Webpage). Title: "https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia". Publisher: "Internet Archive". Published: 2025-08-06T17:43:23. Accessed: 2025-10-28T03:56Z. URI: https://web.archive.org/web/20250806174323/https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia#expand.
    • Type: Meta. Published: 2025-10-29T03:57Z.
      • This is presumed to be an official page as it was linked to from Conservapedia's about page ^[3]^.
  3. Type: Archive (Webpage). Title: "https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About". Publisher: "Internet Archive". Published: 2025-09-09T00:19:42. Accessed: 2025-10-19T03:59Z. URI: https://web.archive.org/web/20250909001942/https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 3 points 19 hours ago

Years ago I saw a page on that site about irrational numbers that was pure comedy. Basically they begrudgingly admit that irrational numbers might actually exist (whatever that means for numbers), but heavily implied that it's a liberal plot of some kind stemming from moral relativism or whatever. Just insane ramblings.

Again, that's the point. That's their angle. Dilute everything so you can't tell what is factually accurate, and then you have kids reading this dumb shit and assuming it is true.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 17 hours ago

It's gotten to the point where now if someone links to YouTube, I'll think they're more likely to be wrong than if they just asserted it with no link. Because if it was true, it would probably have a better source.