I don't really care what the change log says. The log isn't what users read. Users read the text in the screenshot(s).
You asked what was wrong with the image. What's wrong is that it is full meaning can only be divined by a critical reading, which requires answering my above questions and four new questions: (1) why should readers have to view the change log to understand the text (2) should readers expect more rigorous material by asking questions in the change log than is presented in the page itself (3) if yes to the second question, why and (4) why is or would there be more rigour 'behind the scenes' than 'on stage'?
if you don't care to look, why should i spend my time caring what your questions are? I told you before. You have so many burning questions go ask them or read lmao
I'm not asking questions because I want to know your or anybody else's answers. I'm giving you the questions which if you answer will reveal the problems in the screenshot(s). I was hoping that if I could help you think this through for yourself, you would begin to learn how to ask critical questions on your own in future.
Redtea is giving you the kind of deep questioning we do here to understand your first question. It's not a question for you to answer. It's the reasoning behind us questioning Wikipedia editors. And a really great job at that. He was really thoughtful, I don't think I'd be able to go to the same level of detail.
The log will likely show that whoever came up with these questions was overruled, and for drawing lines and editorial choices, they went with a prominent Russia flag on one side, against a "neutral" link that may or may not contain NATO countries in it. See, these choices are not neutral. These choices follow the same choices regarding international politics as the big media conglomerates sponsored by the US financial system. How likely is that a coincidence?
I can agree with you that the updated list is better. But the summary still leans one way. At least it gives people some chance to go deeper, now. Still, most people won't, so it's fair to expect most people will just think Russia vs Ukraine. With some suppliers around them. 'Probably "terrorists" and "dictators" (also terminology used by the same finance-system financed media) behind Russia, since we're good guys and they're bad guys, duh.'
That's a good point. Ig that's why wikipedia had updated it.
Is that because there's insufficient or poor evidence for Russia's supporters?
If so or if not, what is the effect of giving the impression that clicking the link under Russia will reveal a large and well substantiated list?
If the Russian list wasn't impliedly large, why include a link rather than a couple of names?
Does the presentation equate the kind and scope of support for Russia and Ukraine?
If so, what is the effect, intended or accidental, of equating support for Ukraine and Russia?
What is the effect, intended or accidental, of limiting 'support' to military suppliers or aid?
What is the difference between 'suppliers' and 'aid'?
Why is there no 'aid' list for Russia?
Why is there no 'supplier' list for Ukraine?
What is the effect of using different categories connected to each state?
The OP screenshot and the updated version you posted raise these questions.
Most repectfully, you can read the change log and the discussions on the page. Hell, you can even ask the same questions there.
I don't really care what the change log says. The log isn't what users read. Users read the text in the screenshot(s).
You asked what was wrong with the image. What's wrong is that it is full meaning can only be divined by a critical reading, which requires answering my above questions and four new questions: (1) why should readers have to view the change log to understand the text (2) should readers expect more rigorous material by asking questions in the change log than is presented in the page itself (3) if yes to the second question, why and (4) why is or would there be more rigour 'behind the scenes' than 'on stage'?
if you don't care to look, why should i spend my time caring what your questions are? I told you before. You have so many burning questions go ask them or read lmao
I'm not asking questions because I want to know your or anybody else's answers. I'm giving you the questions which if you answer will reveal the problems in the screenshot(s). I was hoping that if I could help you think this through for yourself, you would begin to learn how to ask critical questions on your own in future.
The person you are answering is not getting the point lol, despite its a common rhetoric figure
I think you're right!
I suspect they were trolling from the start: asking a question then refusing to engage with the answers seriously.
Redtea is giving you the kind of deep questioning we do here to understand your first question. It's not a question for you to answer. It's the reasoning behind us questioning Wikipedia editors. And a really great job at that. He was really thoughtful, I don't think I'd be able to go to the same level of detail.
The log will likely show that whoever came up with these questions was overruled, and for drawing lines and editorial choices, they went with a prominent Russia flag on one side, against a "neutral" link that may or may not contain NATO countries in it. See, these choices are not neutral. These choices follow the same choices regarding international politics as the big media conglomerates sponsored by the US financial system. How likely is that a coincidence?
I can agree with you that the updated list is better. But the summary still leans one way. At least it gives people some chance to go deeper, now. Still, most people won't, so it's fair to expect most people will just think Russia vs Ukraine. With some suppliers around them. 'Probably "terrorists" and "dictators" (also terminology used by the same finance-system financed media) behind Russia, since we're good guys and they're bad guys, duh.'