I'm an original Wikipedian editor, but now I cannot stand it - it has been totally captured and compromised by hidden vested interests on all the contentious issues.
I'm an original Wikipedian editor, but now I cannot stand it - it has been totally captured and compromised by hidden vested interests on all the contentious issues.
Thanks everyone. My Wikipedia tag is rather desirable: I am Excalibur, also known as the sword of truth. There are many people who would give a lot of money for that tag - but (unlike Wikipedia itself) it is not for sale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Excalibur
Wikipedia frequently has fundraisers. I have mixed feelings about that. The bias is obvious about some topics, especially health. However I like their physics, chemistry and geography websites. I guess a reasonable question to ask is whether there is any money in distorting the truth.
Yes, in specific categories. For example many of the most prominent leaders in the anti-lockdown movement have been vilified and discredited there, whilst all the vaccines are talked up.
Disabilities such as Down Syndrome are all described as a list of medical symptoms, so it is not very pleasant or people-first.
So glad you are here, and saying this. I was caught off guard when a college friend and longtime Wikipedian editor became an early vocal detractor of all forms of C19 vaccine skepticism and repurposed medicines. He was quite vocal on Facebook. He's a UCB music major and composer with nothing resembling scientific or clinical expertise, but that didn't give him pause. I found it astonishing that THIS person could have been captured and compromised, but that's what it seems like.
Well, most Wikipedia articles are uncontentious and factual, but sadly, the job of editing has gradually shifted - it was always a rather monkish task, but the rules are now so complicated that it puts off anyone but the experts, so its been easy for vested interests to capture and dominate the narratives - by using paid editors to sanitise content and create entirely vexatious impossible standards for anyone who dares to write content that fails to conform.
I'm an original Wikipedian editor, but now I cannot stand it - it has been totally captured and compromised by hidden vested interests on all the contentious issues.
Thanks everyone. My Wikipedia tag is rather desirable: I am Excalibur, also known as the sword of truth. There are many people who would give a lot of money for that tag - but (unlike Wikipedia itself) it is not for sale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Excalibur
Wikipedia frequently has fundraisers. I have mixed feelings about that. The bias is obvious about some topics, especially health. However I like their physics, chemistry and geography websites. I guess a reasonable question to ask is whether there is any money in distorting the truth.
Yes, in specific categories. For example many of the most prominent leaders in the anti-lockdown movement have been vilified and discredited there, whilst all the vaccines are talked up.
Disabilities such as Down Syndrome are all described as a list of medical symptoms, so it is not very pleasant or people-first.
So glad you are here, and saying this. I was caught off guard when a college friend and longtime Wikipedian editor became an early vocal detractor of all forms of C19 vaccine skepticism and repurposed medicines. He was quite vocal on Facebook. He's a UCB music major and composer with nothing resembling scientific or clinical expertise, but that didn't give him pause. I found it astonishing that THIS person could have been captured and compromised, but that's what it seems like.
Well, most Wikipedia articles are uncontentious and factual, but sadly, the job of editing has gradually shifted - it was always a rather monkish task, but the rules are now so complicated that it puts off anyone but the experts, so its been easy for vested interests to capture and dominate the narratives - by using paid editors to sanitise content and create entirely vexatious impossible standards for anyone who dares to write content that fails to conform.