4 ms·
"It isn't perfect." Articles about some chemical process are fine, indeed often excellent. Everything where facts get filtered and presented, is bad. Read abo
by KingOfCoders 1y ago
"It isn't perfect."
Articles about some chemical process are fine, indeed often excellent.
Everything where facts get filtered and presented, is bad. Read about real world events - especially where different groups or countries were involved - in three different languages on Wikipedia, and you'd think three different universes exist.
- throwaway2037 1y ago> Read about real world events - especially where different groups or countries were involved - in three different languages on Wikipedia, and you'd think three different universes exist. Can you give a clear example? I would like to read it for myself.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- BlueTemplar 1y agoIt isn't so much as bad, as inevitable. And as you say, Wikipedia has the built-in antidote with the other language versions and the Talk pages.
- zahlman 1y ago> And as you say, Wikipedia has the built-in antidote with the other language versions and the Talk pages. The Talk pages are just a first introduction to the sheer madness behind the scenes; one quickly starts to realize that relative few people are calling the shots in a lot of places and that their personal biases are causing serious problems. The "Reliable Sources" policy would be atrocious enough already (there are no objective processes for challenging a source's inclusion or exclusion from the informal list on a given topic, only political ones) without the "power user" editors who are clearly abusing it.