If you ever wondered why some Wikipedia articles are titled "murder of ____" and others "killing of ____":
Edited 22h ago
@molly0xfff I zoomed in on this moments before you switched out the transparent background, and for a moment the wikipedia process looked like four-dimensional chess.
@molly0xfff doesn't seem to cover assassination? e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Abraham_Lincoln
@molly0xfff they're gonna need one of those articles for the person responsible for the vertical alignment of text within those cells
@molly0xfff it fills me with hope for humanity that a project with mainly unpaid volunteers manages to create processes that are so well-defined you can properly fit them into a flowchart 👍
@molly0xfff Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can flowchart!
(I love that this much process exists)
![Avatar for Ruth [☕️ 👩🏻💻📚✍🏻🧵🪡🍵]](/proxy/identity_icon/305587296619935826/1119da0214.jpg){kind=icon}
@molly0xfff I kind of appreciate that they name Capital Punishment as a subclass of homicide.
@molly0xfff That chart seems broken. The only possible answers to "What was the manner of death?" are "Unknown" and "Suicide"?! There are also boxes labelled "Homicide" and "Natural causes and accidental deaths" but you can't get to them following the arrows! Also why are those last two boxes I mentioned connected to each other?! Bidirectionally, even!
Edited 22h ago
@molly0xfff This is very informative and timely.
Edited 21h ago
@molly0xfff That flow chart broke my brain for a bit there. The arrow from the "manner of death" looks like it only goes to "Suicide" at first glance. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use a 4-way intersection to branch off. Usually it's individual lines to each nod like the "conviction for murder" node has.
@molly0xfff rage against the machine song? Yes -> killing in the name of
@molly0xfff Important distinction! I imagine a great deal has to do with liability and not getting sued.
Thanks for sharing! Some people freak out on you when you try to talk about word differences. Thanks for taking the risk ;)
And so you choose what it tells you
And so you choose what it tells you
And so you choose what it tells you
And so you choose what it tells you
@molly0xfff interesting that capital punishment is considered "homicide". i mean, of course it is, an entity is willfully killing a person, but my brain lumps it into an entirely different category when it's an institution doing it rather than an individual.
This explains it to every variable.
Thanks for the providing the clarity from Wikipedia.
@molly0xfff does Wikipedia have criteria for use of "Assassination" instead of murder/killing?
How refreshing (ok for a grim subject). This deeply matters. I lurv wikipedia more every day.
@molly0xfff Unsurprisingly this is very well thought through.
@foobarry That's handled by the "COMMONNAME" caveat at the top of the graphic, described in more detail at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%22Murder_of%22_articles#%22Assassination_of%22_articles
@molly0xfff @foobarry This article would put more into "assassination" than wikipedia would seem to include. Namely the person's motives behind the killing involving things like politics and religion, as well as the intended impact on the public. Sort of like the distinction between blowing a bunch of people up and a terrorist attack I guess.
https://legalclarity.org/what-is-the-difference-between-assassination-and-murder/
@molly0xfff @foobarry Ah… that answers my question about inquest verdicts. Thank you.
@luis_in_brief lol congrats, you citation-needed the Citation Needed gal! @molly0xfff
Edited 20h ago
@molly0xfff @luis_in_brief They don’t follow this if you go back far enough. Lots of centuries-old murders are described as murders with no convictions for murder. (Which makes sense since “courts” back then were garbage.)
Random example: