4 ms·
Wikipedia itself is... "innocent". But rather, those "anonymous volunteers" and their agenda have taken over Wikipedia contents. That is the disgusting part.
by ttrreeww 13y ago
Wikipedia itself is... "innocent". But rather, those "anonymous volunteers" and their agenda have taken over Wikipedia contents. That is the disgusting part.
- tptacek 13y agoYour evidence that Wikipedia has been captured by PR is... what?
- alexqgb 13y agoHere's a case in point. http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2013/03/wikipedia_editors_accuse_bp_of.html http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2013/03/wi... That fact that it can happen here - and to this extent - should be very good reason to assume that similar efforts are being made by every global corporation with a communications budget to match its image problems (e.g. Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, etc.) If you're truly interested in finding out more about particular companies, you can sort through the edit histories and correlating changes (where possible) with editors working for or with the companies in question.
- tptacek 13y agoHuh? It's an Internet site open to anonymous editors. Of course companies try to alter the own pages. The project caught them, and fixed the page. If your standard is a project that simultaneously accepts anonymous contributions and credibly claims never to have PR-manipulated content on the site, that's unreasonable.