This is coming from Glenn Greenwald, a known Putin shill, so all this could mean is the efforts to maintain truth on Wikipedia, since Ruzzia and her allies worldwide (including the American Republican party, or at least the 'MAGA' portion) constantly seek to obfuscate the truth and alter articles critical of them, their positions, their narratives.

Now I'm not saying there isn't a shred of truth, there usually is with shills like Greenwald, so I'm sure the US and their allies are actively involved in doing something similar, but nobody lies like the current Ruzzian regime and their allies, their people are so misinformed and propagandized that they wouldn't know the truth if it smacked them over the head.

Some sources to back up my point:

https://gizmodo.com/wikipedia-russia-ukraine-propaganda-suspicious-edits-1849673060

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/russia-edits-mh17-wikipedia-article

https://www.iflscience.com/woman-writes-fake-russian-history-on-wikipedia-for-over-a-decade-before-being-caught-64245

https://www.new-east-archive.org/articles/show/2967/wikipedia-russian-government-edits

https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/wikipedia-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-edits-kyiv-kiev.html

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/01/1090279187/russia-wikipedia-fine

https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/03/03/wikimedia-foundation-stands-with-communities-defending-free-knowledge/

https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/11/22973293/wikipedia-editor-russia-belarus-ukraine

[–] nac82@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

Good on you fighting for truth online

[–] Lowered_lifted@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you for the sources. Greenwald is so far right and has gone so far off the deep end of conspiracy theory stuff that it really doesn't make sense to believe anything he says.

[+] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

he's a journalist. if you don't like what he prints, you might ask yourself why.

[–] UFODivebomb@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ok.

To assume the truth of something only based on profession or historical accomplishments is an appeal to authority fallacy.

Done.

"He's a journalist!" So?

"He once exposed this great story!" So?

Neither are actual arguments of the truth of current statements.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

To assume the truth of something only based on profession or historical accomplishments is an appeal to authority fallacy.

that's not what's happening here. i didn't say it's not true. i said he's a journalist. if you can disprove what he said, you should.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

if you think he's not a journalist it's on you to provide a reason. he investigates and publishes news stories. he's a journalist.