336
Elon Musk's version of Wikipedia is 'cribbing' information from the real one: report
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2025
336 points (98.6% liked)
politics
31463 readers
2132 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
There are people out there fighting an insane uphill battle against not just the usual things you hear about - the young earth creationist denialism, the old earth creationist denialism, the moon landing denialists, the vaccine denialists, the moon landing denialists, the Holocaust deniers, and the spherical Earth denialists, there are also people doing whole podcasts where they try to deny things like quantum physics for similar ideological reasons...
Jan Irvin was this guy that seemed to kind of be out there on the fringe writing and talking about some rather fringe ideas related to the way in which xtianity began and interested in psychedelics, maybe somewhere on the left as far as ideology. Then, somewhere along the way, he seems to have done a turn [1], similar to the one Naomi Wolf did. Now he seems very much right-wing aligned, and at some point started cranking out lots of content about how Burning Man is some nexus of a deep state plot. Anyway, I seem to remember him cranking out lots of content railing against quantum physics, too.
Usually quantum physics serves as a crank magnet for all kinds of generally leftist kookery, but Jan seems to want to reject it outright for similar reasons that you talk about above with irrational numbers.
[1] One thing about the conspiracy theorists I've noticed is that they all tend to have similar character traits, mostly antisocial ones. They may align, for a time, with another conspiracy theorist, put out content together etc, but then, something or other happens, and they basically break up. And then they often won't even mention persona non grata...and then they find a new set of boyfriends, and soon the cycle repeats. Jan seemingly had some kind of mental break and radical life changes (?) so his positions went very red pill. If Jan is still out there doing content, I don't know if he's still doing similar content or even running with the same crew.
I know this isn't your point, but the non-political way to express a similar rejection of quantum theory was literally just Einstein saying "god does not play dice", which he famously retracted.
Indeed, I think a lot of people probably have a similar reaction.
In Jan's case it seems his view is that it opens the door to things like "moral relativism" and so the spectre of "Cultural Marxism" and the related accusations of this being some sort of plot soon follow...
I found it interesting since evolution deniers do similar things when it comes to Bio 101 - they think that Darwin is making the world more "secular", as they define that term. Meaning, they think that scientific facts influence culture in some nefarious way. They may be right that facts will influence culture in certain ways, but they arrive at the conclusion that it's been orchestrated by some big "They" to force some cultural outcome, and assume it also must be false.
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.
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