It wasn't that long ago that I learned Switzerland is known for cheese in the US. Here in the UK, we don't make that association.

[removed]

Argentina has >5x and Venezuela >3x the population of CH too

Alternatively, you can be a student team at a university trying to get permission from a mod in Wikipedia to add a section to an article and get denied for six months. Our teacher had to give up on that exercise because no team got permission in the end, lol.

Source: am that student

Denmark is 455 thousand tonnes p.a. which is 78kg pr. Capita and your neighbors over at New Zealand does 76.1kg pr capita.

US does a total of 6.200 thousand tonnes p.a. and are not even mentioned on the graph.

“Money won’t buy you happiness, but it will buy you more cows”

I found Tinder’s add campaign for Wisconsin.

[removed]

[removed]

Lmao you're putting MSNBC and HuffPost in the same category as OANN? Sorry, but you're a fucking moron. Hopelessly brainwashed by the propaganda.

Do MSNBC and HuffPost have a bias? Sure. But at least they don't report conspiracy theories as is they're facts. There's a difference between having a partisan bias that colors your reporting, and reporting blatant falsehoods about how the election was stolen and Trump is still the president.

Get a grip dude. You're blinded by the brainwashing.

This is very interesting, thank you! I work in admissions and yield rate is a big topic of discussion in our work. I'm curious, where did you get this data set? US News and World Report?

Per capita would be more interesting. I’m also curious the fraction of Swiss cheese and, for that matter the Monty Python popularized Venezuelan beaver cheese.

A lot of Mormon families also put a ton of pressure on their kids to go to BYU and some parents will even refuse to help pay for any other school.

Source: I am one of those kids

Many top students must apply to most of the top schools so it seems like they coordinate acceptances or those numbers would be lower.

Oh, sorry, we sold out.

> There it is. You don't like Wikipedia because it doesn't let you push your agenda

Brother I gave you fucking examples of actual human beings who did nothing wrong and got banned for it.

Get your head outside the board's behinds and see the truth of the matter that there is actual research into the bias of wikipedia and its overreliance of dubious quality secondary sources whose bias is well known to be genuinely awful.

The Guardian is not a news source that is at all neutral. Huffington Post is even worse. CNN and Fox News are decent. MSNBC is a shitshow with occasional news. So why the fuck are the first two even accepted as a reliable source? You don't fucking accept OANN, so why the fuck are the dumpster fires of the left wing accepted?

It's because you unironically cannot see your own bias.

> considering how much disinformation, brainwashing, and propaganda has been generated by the American right wing in the last decade

There's exactly one popular right wing news network in the United States, you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

>If it isn't left-wing it's instantly overthrown from the reasonable scale if it's at all political.

There it is. You don't like Wikipedia because it doesn't let you push your agenda. I typically stay far away from political articles, partly because I don't buy into political theater, and partly because I'm not attracted to drama. With that said... considering how much disinformation, brainwashing, and propaganda has been generated by the American right wing in the last decade or so, it's no surprise that a right winger such as yourself would feel frustrated, since all of your media sources aren't considered reliable (and rightly so) and many of your closely-held beliefs are probably dismissed as nonsense by many other editors.

It may be true that Wikipedia has a slight left wing bias, mostly owing to the fact that writing encyclopedia articles is a scholarly pursuit and therefore WP editors tend to be educated (and left wing folks are statically more likely to be highly educated than right wing folks), but my guess is that any actual bias on WP is a lot less than what someone in your position perceives it as.

[removed]

Was expecting red for 25/06/2009. Wasn’t disappointed.

> then it's quite easy to add whatever content you want, even if other editors don't like your content for whatever reason.

Ryulong only got banned after page squatting for quite some time and pissing off a gigantic amount of people.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939

Entire pages have been pagesquatted by people who have intrinsic bias about the incident since the people in question are unfavorable if the other side is true...

T.D Adler was banned for pointed out admin CoI.

Political Commentators are accused of harassment for being harassed on some pages.

If it isn't left-wing it's instantly overthrown from the reasonable scale if it's at all political.

If you fill a jar with peanuts and then stop doing so, does the number of peanuts in the jar start decreasing?

The country with many friends is the country with many cheeses! Don’t feel like cheese? That argument has as many holes as a slice of this fine gorgombert!

Yeah, I think it's the general consensus that you shouldn't copy paste even if it's your own text. But the slides aren't public and it's Wikipedia and not a scientific article

Interesting, makes sense, smaller denominator

They finally absorbed the knowledge

You can still plagiarize yourself right?