I don’t really see it that way. Both are premised on magical thinking without proof, via sensory misinterpretation, resulting in unfounded conjecture and illogical leaps, conspiracy, and ultimately cult following. Both can be disproven given sufficient information, but one is obviously orders of magnitude easier to disapprove.

Both are ‘too fun to give up subcultures’ and can result in and from the same paranoid delusional base.

How is this surprising when we have religion?

What if you let an HIV infected man-gorilla fuck your mom, just once in a while though, so he’ll stop beating her every day. Seems like it’d be in everyone’s best interest yeah?

Raw dollar value means nothing if it’s not tariff and inflation adjusted. Report total pieces as well.

The first is how many think it works, but it’s just a ruse. It’s always the second, and religious magical thinking always results in social positions and votes that are damaging and regressive.

So not very long at all /s, not that it shouldn’t be a word, but rather, why complicate the legal system needlessly when such systems rely on relativity, clarity, and consistency. Outside of that context we can have 10000 words for it.

I see no reason to make a special specific word as every category needs this…

They should just add modifiers to the category: Assault for instance can get aggravated and hate crime as adjuvants. Murder has manslaughter and degrees and could have hate crime modifiers.

This is a more fair and clear generalized solution of core concepts than entirely new specific categories.

Well you’d think they would include that in the calculation.

Ends up in semantics though… Contested only requires 1, and highly or widely is not defined, and who is a qualifying contributor is not qualified, and who is a qualifying arbiter is not defined.

Depending on how invested he is in the feedback, he may not even realize currently it’s being read outside the context of the wiki editing neutrality issue he was talking about for the article.

I know nothing about his politics, and can only talk about the semantic concepts.

To play devil’s advocate, due to the formulation of his edit suggestion, he may have meant how to depict the claims is being highly contested (on wiki) and should be more neutral and specific as per who is claiming what… And said it badly.

Everyone was once a child

Your simulation seems to only punish selfish actors when that’s not always the case. Doesn’t include natural monopolies, lacks clandestine exploitation, and there’s likely no market capture or saturation. In such a case the only play is to cooperate.