3 ms·
You can read all the conversations yourself as they took place on various Wikipedia pages: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graham_McCann/Archive_1 https:/
by bjourne 10y ago
You can read all the conversations yourself as they took place on various Wikipedia pages:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graham_McCann/Archive_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graham_McCann/Archive_1
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graham_McCann_(2nd_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:92.23.93.50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:92.23.93.50
I've probably missed some.
- i336_ 10y agoOh, thanks! ...Wow, the conversations are almost as bad as the article itself...
- bigbugbag 10y agoOnce you've seen the inner working of wikipedia you know that this daily mail piece if factually accurate, I'd even say that it only brushes the tip of the iceberg. The wikipedia cabal has been raised as an issue since at least 2003 when the current article on meta was created: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabal&direction=prev&oldid=4949 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabal&direction...
- bigbugbag 10y agoThere's also this page documenting the issues of wikipedia pushing contributors away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_los...