3 ms·

> Basically any change you make it insta-reverted by some bot or over-zealous power-crazed editor. You sound like someone who was pushing a particular point of

> Basically any change you make it insta-reverted by some bot or over-zealous power-crazed editor. You sound like someone who was pushing a particular point of view about politics, which is precisely the kind of edits that are set up for organ rejection given Wikipedia's strict stance on neutrality, sourcing, and the fact that politics are naturally contentious / prone to edit warring. There are between 1.5 and 2 million anonymous edits to Wikipedia every month. https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-wikipedia-projects/contributing/edits/normal|line|all|editor_type~anonymous*group-bot*name-bot*user|monthly https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-wikipedia-projects/contrib... A lot of them are in reality vandalism, spam, and garbage by passersby, but they aren't all reverted.

b59831 3y ago
Have you used Wikipedia? It was one of the first culture war battlegrounds... And it's been owned for a while now. Looking at these gross payments (and executive migration to think tanks), are you really pretending things aren't political?
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
  I’m going to be honest I’ve gone to some of the more controversial articles they don’t seem far off from reality a lot of the time. They usually have citations of both pro and anti arguments on both sides of any debate. Is there something I’m missing?
  - sp332 3y ago
    Yes, the Talk and History pages on those articles.
    - ethbr0 3y ago
      People can play fact Monopoly behind the scenes as much as they want -- there's a reason Talk isn't displayed without clicking on it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
andersrs 3y ago
Sure there is a lot of spam but there is also a lot of political pressure to influence politically controversial articles. This rather old video was an eye opener for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY
- swalling 3y ago
  This kind of campaign is overblown. They mention the topic of the Gaza flotilla raid in the video. If you read the actual article on this topic, it's pretty balanced, and mentions in the introduction that Israel was condemned by the UN Human Rights Council and their use of force was called excessive and unreasonable. Hardly a Zionist propaganda piece.

b59831 3y ago

Have you used Wikipedia? It was one of the first culture war battlegrounds... And it's been owned for a while now. Looking at these gross payments (and executive migration to think tanks), are you really pretending things aren't political?

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
I’m going to be honest I’ve gone to some of the more controversial articles they don’t seem far off from reality a lot of the time. They usually have citations of both pro and anti arguments on both sides of any debate. Is there something I’m missing?
- sp332 3y ago
  Yes, the Talk and History pages on those articles.
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    People can play fact Monopoly behind the scenes as much as they want -- there's a reason Talk isn't displayed without clicking on it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

andersrs 3y ago

Sure there is a lot of spam but there is also a lot of political pressure to influence politically controversial articles. This rather old video was an eye opener for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY

swalling 3y ago
This kind of campaign is overblown. They mention the topic of the Gaza flotilla raid in the video. If you read the actual article on this topic, it's pretty balanced, and mentions in the introduction that Israel was condemned by the UN Human Rights Council and their use of force was called excessive and unreasonable. Hardly a Zionist propaganda piece.