I am a self proclaimed wiki-phile, I always donated when I could. It was kind of like going to the library without the fresh book smell.
I am a self proclaimed wiki-phile, I always donated when I could. It was kind of like going to the library without the fresh book smell.
Wikipedia is captured by people who value procedure more than fact, they will revert, delete, lock pages if you did something not the way this specific person with a lot of time and clout likes.
There are also examples of unpunished retaliation against people that tried to do something about it.
Citation needed
I don’t doubt there are examples of volunteers reverting changes made by other volunteers. Saying it’s captured is ridiculous. Wikipedia is an immense source of shared value. I’d need much more specific evidence before dismissing it, and frankly I don’t expect anyone has such evidence.
There is nothing ridiculous about it, they even have specific terms for countless abuses by “senior editors”, e.g. wikilawyer, content authoritharian you can look it up. Their policy was/is “Verifiability, not truth”. As for evidence, there is plenty:
Tap for spoiler
Well, you were going to dismiss whatever I will link you, so there were no point in providing links
I’ve got proof that raw milk is much healthier than milk that’s been heated for just a little bit. But, sigh, unfortunately you won’t believe any article I link you. Your mind is darkened and cannot perceive my ideas. A shame.
For real though, why on god’s green earth would you link the philip roth complaint? Encyclopedias are not a primary source for anything, you don’t publish new information to them.
My spoiler was in response to “I’d need much more specific evidence before dismissing it”, so my evidence would be dismissed anyway.
You do actually publish new relevant information to enciclopedias, that’s why they created new editions in time when they were printed on paper.
My initial point was and still is, wikipedia devours itself due to editors and their egos.
Sources?
Elon Musk