Nah wikipedia has been taken over by politically motivated actors. I really enjoyed it when it was relatively agenda free. If you don’t believe me go check the talk page of any controversial article.
“Taken over” is a little strong. Anyone can edit a page, but you can see the edit history. That doesn’t mean wikipedia is compromised. It means you need to be media literate. If there’s too many bad faith edits, the article gets reverted and locked.
Go look at some of the most active wikipedia contributors, they are mostly hyper political nerds. Wikipedia is heavily reliant on the social consensus of it’s contributors. It’s not a far out idea that there could be a slant among them.
curation can still skew towards one side. you know this, everyone knows this. just saying wikipedia used to better before it was taken over by ideologues.
I imagine you can figure it out from here. If you need, I can suggest a tutor to help you master the art of typing text into a text box and then clicking the button below it.
Nah wikipedia has been taken over by politically motivated actors. I really enjoyed it when it was relatively agenda free. If you don’t believe me go check the talk page of any controversial article.
“Taken over” is a little strong. Anyone can edit a page, but you can see the edit history. That doesn’t mean wikipedia is compromised. It means you need to be media literate. If there’s too many bad faith edits, the article gets reverted and locked.
Go look at some of the most active wikipedia contributors, they are mostly hyper political nerds. Wikipedia is heavily reliant on the social consensus of it’s contributors. It’s not a far out idea that there could be a slant among them.
Just so you know, you can check any claim by going to the cited source. If there is no source, you’re free to ask for one or ignore.
That’s far better then other systems. It’s also an encyclopedia, not a news paper. You shouldn’t be using it for current events anyway.
curation can still skew towards one side. you know this, everyone knows this. just saying wikipedia used to better before it was taken over by ideologues.
The problem is that the Wikipedia admins are arrogant. I suppose power corrupts
I’d like an example of what you’re talking about.
There are tons. Use your favorite internet search tool and look for “Wikipedia editor controversy”. Happy reading!
So you favorite, uncited, pet political theory got deleted then?
I’ve never edited a Wikipedia page.
Ok, cause you sound like one of those facebook moms saying “do your research” when you question them on their bleach enema treatments.
Are you incapable of searching the internet? Do you need me to do it for you?
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=wikipedia+controversy+editor
And because I know how hard it is to click the link above, here’s a couple results, you dullard.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies
https://slate.com/technology/2019/07/wikipedia-fram-banning-editor-controversy.html
https://www.engadget.com/scots-wikipedia-230210674.html
I imagine you can figure it out from here. If you need, I can suggest a tutor to help you master the art of typing text into a text box and then clicking the button below it.