4 ms·
Compare the opening paragraphs of this article in 2015 vs now: https://web.archive.org/web/20151104200851/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorizat
by oscribinn 5y ago
Compare the opening paragraphs of this article in 2015 vs now:
https://web.archive.org/web/20151104200851/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://web.archive.org/web/20151104200851/https://en.wikipe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
Anyone thinking that Wikipedia still provides a nonpartisan platform which makes an honest attempt to catalogue all the angles on a specific topic without any blatant spin is either dishonest or naive.
- unethical_ban 5y agoIt's strange to see someone use "bipartisan" as a stand un for "fair" or "factual".
- oscribinn 5y agoEdited, "nonpartisan" is apparently the word I was looking for.
- bad_username 5y agoThis is cotrect. Wikipedia informs poorly on subjects that have political or cultural significance, favoring heavily certain ideologies over neutral presentation of facts. It has been hijacked by activists that make it impossible to introduce any data that is outside of what is fashionable today. Wikipedia still rides its old reputation, but does not deserve it any more.
- adzm 5y agoWhat are you trying to point out in the latest version? They are still pretty similar for several years apart.
- doublepg23 5y agoEchoing the other comment, I'm unsure what's wrong with the opening paragraph in the second link.