3 ms·
It's true that government request isn't a valid reason, but administrators lock articles for much shakier reasons _all_ the time. Usually this happens when news
by joenot443 3y ago
It's true that government request isn't a valid reason, but administrators lock articles for much shakier reasons _all_ the time. Usually this happens when news comes out which would challenge the prevailing narrative of the article. At this point, other members come in and update the article, but those still loyal to the original viewpoint are quick to revert. Thus, the resident admin can declare an "Edit War", and now the article will go protected and will largely still pander to the original view, regardless of what new reports or data may come out. Typically, the original editors will then get in Talk-fights and exhaust any dissenting opinions by nitpicking with rules (WP:___, etc.) and the article will remain locked.
I had some examples linked, but I worry their inclusion would derail the discussion. To be clear - I love Wikipedia, I use it every day. It's abundantly clear though that it doesn't represent anything close to a neutral perspective, it represents the exact politics of the kind of person who you would imagine would become a Wikipedia editor.
- bawolff 3y agoNeutrality is an ideal that i think wikipedia strives for, but is impossible to ever reach. Hopefully it tends ever more towards it as time goes on. Like everything, wikipedia is certainly shaped, both consiously and unconciously by the people who write it. Anyways, i think whether or not it is "neutral" is kind of the wrong question, because nothing really is in the absolute. The interesting question is how is it relative to other information sources. Ancedotally i think its pretty good, but this is a terrible question to answer ancedotally as that might just mean i agree with its biases or i just look at the right parts of wikipedia (wikipedia's quality is hardly uniform across all topics)
- LastTrain 3y agoThat is because there isn’t such thing as a “clear neutral” perspective, and to expect someone to deliver one to you and bitch about it when they don’t is irrational. Moderation is a balance of concerns and Wikipedia has struck about the best balance I’ve seen from a large org.
- joenot443 3y agoConsidering "neutrality" is literally one of the three policies of Wikipedia, I don't think it's very irrational for one to expect that to be delivered. Its mention seems to have struck a nerve with you though, for that I apologize, I certainly didn't come here with the intention to "bitch" about your favorite large org :)