OpenStars

Not in their own minds, and that is all that matters. Also not to their church members, sadly:-(.

And maybe a wheelchair.

Oh, and bacon. A LOT more bacon! :-P

Everyone has implicit biases. It takes a huge amount of effort to work past them and write content that is considered unbiased. The latter is a group effort to achieve consensus, which even in the hard sciences is often difficult, but Wikipedia has had fantastic successes there - e.g. look at any controversial subject (someone mentioned BP, and how half the page was about their "controversies", which does not say that they are true, nor false, but acknowledges that they exist all the same - most people, with the exclusion of the BP execs I am sure - would consider that to be a state that is unbiased).

In fact, the OP brings up a major source of bias to begin with: if someone wants to federate a blogging website, why would we even talk about it - just DO IT!:-) However, the name "Wikipedia" was mentioned b/c it is popular. This introduces a bias whereby the rest of the discussion will be predicated upon the lines of what Wikipedia is vs. what it is not. Even though the OP made it clear that "Wikipedia" is not the goal of that project at all. Even dragging its name into it has thus introduced a source of bias, rather than allowing everyone here to discuss the merits of this proposal on its own, as if made from scratch rather than a Wikipedia-clone ("good" connotations?) or Wikipedia-wanna-be ("bad" ones?) or Wikipedia-whatever.

I think you have 2 replies here that went to the wrong place - instead of to the person you likely aimed them at, they are to yourself. I just thought that you might like to know!:-)

I would dare say that the vast majority of the people on Lemmy are by no means "average". Not necessarily better or worse, but we do have biases: we seem to trend towards older IT professionals who will put up with all the website glitches, as compared to e.g. a normal tween that would not.

Example "average" lie (in my own addled mind): "Gurl puh-lease, you lookin' MIGHTY fine right about now!" (translation: bish please, you look like a dumpster fire wrapped in bacon, insteada puttin on makeup and pounds, you need to be going to the GYM!:-P) Or at least this is my impression based on Twitter and YouTube, though tbf I don't really look at either of them and what posts do make their way onto Lemmy (or Reddit before the collapse) may have been... slightly skewed? :-D

I used to just tell people. It... did not go over well:-P. After that I lied, for their sakes b/c they did not truly want to know.

Having read this over, fwiw I am definitively siding with @snooggums@midwest.social on this. Here is an illustration that I think will help:

Child 1: Hey, let's grab some cookies!

Child 2: Okay! (reaches for cookie but before they can grab one...)

Mother: Hey, what are you doing - you two are not eating cookies are you, hrm!?

Child 1: No mummy dearest (choose appropriate slang of choice here:-), we two are not eating cookies...

Question: did child 1 lie? Technically their statement is accurate according to the narrowest possible interpretation - they both were not eating cookies, yet, even though the intentions of them both were fairly blatantly obvious.

Communication among humans is not math - the meaning of a message requires interpretation from the multiple parties involved. And in particular the recipient is usually in possession of additional data than the sender - at the very least, once the sender chooses to send the message packet, then the receiver has obtained +1 message that prior to the sending did not yet exist between them (and which may contain additional data, such as "a sender exists" and "the sender was located in this direction, at the time of the sending").

Anyway the child KNOWS what the mother intended to ask, but deliberately and blatantly told an extremely skewed version of the truth that is SO distorted, SO unwieldy, SO twisted, that there is no doubt that the intention was to deceive. In a normal situation anyway - though ofc exceptions always exist e.g. an autistic child, or one who has suffered some form of brain damage that causes them to struggle with over-literal statements might somehow literally be confused what the intention of the mother was. But in a normal situation, the meaning is clear: the child lied.

Any judgement about that is ofc up to interpretation - maybe the mother is actually pleased at having taught her children to lie so well? :-P

And I for one appreciate so much that you do - take all the time that you need and I will know that the response will be all the better for it.:-)

I dunno, all I do is hit copy, then go to the website and hit paste, and that's pretty easy as well:-P.

I do need to step up my game for work though, b/c it keeps asking me a password multiple times a day so if I could rattle one off that would be better than having to open up my password manager and get it.

Well, I was going to argue against that, but then I remembered that he is rich - which I guess is the same thing as smart? - so... okay! :-P

I mean, we do hold leadership to a different, higher standard, that much is true. But is this man not the foremost world-class expert authority aka leader of his own life at least? And if not him, irt to that super narrow niche, then who else would be considered the leader of his own life?

Imagine if you will a scenario of a Doctor on television, let us call him Oz, who gives patently false advice that literally gets people actually killed. It is not okay for the TV station to air whatever film was handed to them, but how does that absolve the responsibility of this Doctor Oz from his own measure of responsibility, one may even say culpability (or perhaps criminal liability?) in this whole affair?

Again, there is more than one way to be incorrect, and by extension they both were partners in this crime against journalistic integrity.

NO, NOT THAT, WHY DO YOU ASK IF BRAIN SLUGS CONTROL THAT MAN?