https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... =8&t=11938
1. This is not racism, because the journalist wrongly claimed the guilty party was "the Wikipedia cartoonist", rather than correctly stating, the Wikipedia editor who chose to place this image, created by someone a thousand years ago, as the primary image on the Wikipedia article (which is not about the image)
2. See 1.
There was more, in case you hadn't understood point 1.
Or......this was someone who opened a Wikipedia article, saw a racist image, and saw no justifiable reason for it, so they wrote about it.This is just someone who made up their mind about what they were seeing and looked no further. That's not how journalism works, or at least not how it is supposed to work.
That's called good journalism, at least in an America that wants to move past being a bunch of racist assholes, like their very recent forefathers.
His mates at Wikipediocracy haven't directly called him out for this bullshit, choosing to pussy foot around the prick, because, well, y'know.....