Science Memes

11205 readers

2274 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1110

Penguins ❤️ (mander.xyz)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

93 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Check the article history.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Haha I'm committed to the truth but not that committed. Anyone can edit an article to put in whatever blurb they want, but it won't stick for long if most of the community agrees with it and it has decent citations (none of which are in the screenshot). Also the text isn't written professionally, "love to cuddle" is not language that would normally appear in a scientific wiki article.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

and it has decent citations

Not a case anymore, unfortunately. There are leftist meme articles that only cite tweets and buzzfeed reposting said tweets, but if you try to do anything about it, your edits will be instantly reverted and your account will get banned.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Without examples it's hard to say anything at all beyond guesses really.

But if the article is about a xitter meme, tweets are the original source, and therefore perfectly relevant citations.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The most obvious example I know of is this one. Not a thing, never was a thing, and the entire page is just folk from 196 and blahaj dunking on wikipedia. And check out the talk page where they try to pretend that the skeleton image is the best representation of said "phenomenon", while simultaneously removing any messages doubting it's existence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I dunno, it doesn't seem to overstate its case

While not all films, television shows, photographs, and music videos that use this lighting intend to portray bisexuality, many queer artists have deliberately used this color palette

It also uses sources such as Vice and the BBC

I wouldn't call it a high quality article, like at all, but I also wouldn't call it factually incorrect.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

many queer artists have deliberately used this color palette

[Citation needed]

There were definitely none that did before the wiki article was created.

It also uses sources such as Vice and the BBC

The article from BBC is fluff written by a rando and is based completely off twitter circlejerk. VICE is not a reliable source as anyone can register as an author and make articles there.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)