4 ms·
It sounds like you're accusing Wikipedia of being both too easy to edit ("everyone can write things there") and too restrictive about who can edit ("they don't
by fwipsy 2y ago
It sounds like you're accusing Wikipedia of being both too easy to edit ("everyone can write things there") and too restrictive about who can edit ("they don't care about facts... Crap editors and political propaganda.") It sounds like your real criticism is that Wikipedia has biases and won't let you correct them. Can you provide links to some examples of bias on Wikipedia so that we can make up for ourselves how bad this is?
- Viliam1234 2y ago> Can you provide links to some examples of bias on Wikipedia so that we can make up for ourselves how bad this is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1061#David_Gerard_and_Scott_Siskind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... Here is an example of a Wikipedia admin who spent years harassing a blogger (and a community the blogger belongs to), and it took a lot of effort and a lot of luck to make other admins admit that this was a bad thing and that it should stop. (This is not the worst example I know of, but it is an example where Wikipedia changed its mind later, so you can agree that this was bad even if you trust Wikipedia.)
- ErikBjare 2y agoDavid Gerard strikes again
- gjsman-1000 2y agoOne very recent anecdotal example involving narwhals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0L-3FfkXfM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0L-3FfkXfM Let's just say Wikipedia made an absurd lie, for years from an obvious misunderstanding, and a viciously protective editor got involved...