3 ms·

But that introduces a huge bias toward political and scientific topics and away from anything else. FF6? Irrelevant video game, how many wars did it win, why s

by scarmig 10y ago

But that introduces a huge bias toward political and scientific topics and away from anything else. FF6? Irrelevant video game, how many wars did it win, why should it be there? Pfizer? Why should we allow companies to have individual pages, it's just free marketing? At some point, you cut Wikipedia's breadth down to something that could reasonably be handled by a team of a couple dozen editors. And then you might as well just go with a traditional encyclopedia.

kstrauser 10y ago
> But that introduces a huge bias toward political and scientific topics and away from anything else. Well, some scientific topics. An earlier Boing Boing article (http://boingboing.net/2017/02/14/watching-wikipedias-extincti.html http://boingboing.net/2017/02/14/watching-wikipedias-extinct...) references the WP page for hemovanadin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemovanadin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemovanadin . Two editors worked together to "speedy delete" it.
- empthought 10y ago
  Same author with the same bias then as now; she tried for quite some time to use Wikipedia as a platform for cosmetic services advertising and personal vendettas. edit: til she was banned from Wikipedia for it, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...