Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-02-13/In the media


 * Perhaps Johnson was referring to the Russian Wikipedia. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but "mixture of semi-masticated Wikipedia and outright falsehood" doesn't imply that the Wikipedia part agrees with Putin's disinformation splurt, but just that articles were adapted or otherwise employed to buttress the propaganda? Sandizer  (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Or rather, he meant Ruwiki. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone remotely familiar with his premiership (or, more importantly, his "journalism" before that) would know better than to assume that BoJo even cared to begin to know what he was talking about. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair point. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * To me at least, he seems to be simply referencing the nature of Wikipedia as a place to get large amounts of information on something; Putin was mingling his propaganda with an overly detailed, rather irrelevant, history lesson. Kymothoë (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * My biggest problem with Johnson (apart from having very different views on many things) is that I can't really take him seriously, especially after that UN speech where he put The Muppets and Sophocles almost side to side... Oltrepier (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * "Conservapedia is laced with falsehoods"... sky is blue, Pope is Catholic, etc. Kinda shocked that an NPR station is bothering to write about Andy Schlafly's blog in 2024. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 20:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What you said aligns with my original bold heading for the item. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Everything in history is going to be a "myth" to someone, how is the Novgorod narrative any different to something like the American Revolution for the US, 1812 and Confederation for Canada, or Bosworth Field for England? Orchastrattor (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Myth" is not the same as "history", even if historical facts occasionally make their way into the myth. What Putin said is not the same as the American myths about Washington chopping down a cherry tree, or even about Washington being a great general. The Rus - who were Vikings trading with Constantinople - were certainly in Novgorod and Kiev about the time mentioned (900 CE), but that doesn't mean that the "Kievan Rus" were the founders of the Russian state, or that they even have more than a slight relation to the Duchy of Muscovy (e.g. Ivan the Terrible) or Peter the Great's creation of the Russian Empire. That would be about the equivalent as saying the Pilgrims founded America. There were long stretches of time when Ukraine had nothing to do with Moscow or St. Petersburg. And there were many times when the Muscovites were slaughtering or starving the Ukrainians rather than governing them. Using that history to claim, as Putin was doing, that Ukrainians have always been the little brothers of Russia, is about as historical as it would be to claim that Canadians are the little brothers of Americans. Except Putin is using his myth to slaughteer Ukrainians once more, while saying that they've always been a part of Russia. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hm
We've all seen some pretty lazy media-coverage about WP, but this is in a class of it's own. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)