Wikipedia Sucks!

There's plenty. Thus:

"Is Wikipedia stealing the news?" Yes, dammit, badly. We went over this years ago.
https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news ... news-.html

Plus, Josh Shapiro's bio (which was admitted to be paid-edited):
https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/ ... 54446.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Shapiro
Yammer yammer yammer. What about all the tens of thousands of OTHER paid edits, you little bastards?

And the shooting at a school in Colorado yesterday was OMGOMG "alluded to on Wikipedia before it happened", probably by the angry manchild himself
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/stem-schoo ... wikipedia/
What crappy "journalism". Don't bother looking for the edit--our Heroic Trust and Safety Team made damn sure it was rev-deleted--by Her Glorious Majesty Molly "GorillaWarfare" White with her characteristic smugness. Even though it was copiously documented by multiple news outlets. Pointless.

Plus I should make a comment about right-wing "news" sites screeching over WP bias. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are excessively paranoid, and sometimes they are years out of date. Newstarget.com is especially notorious. This item about the idiotic Rupert Sheldrake editwarring is about something that happened more than 6 years ago. Remember that Newstarget is run by Mike Adams and the Natural News gang, who are fond of pushing alternative therapies and anti-vaxxing, plus fear of chemtrails and electric fields. Sometimes they make a good point but the paranoia ends up swamping out any legitimate criticism.
https://www.newstarget.com/2019-04-10-w ... drake.html
Search Newstarget for Wikipedia items. Plenty. This one was "amusing".
https://www.newstarget.com/2019-04-09-w ... pedia.html

It's one of those sources that ultra-right conspiracy pushers like Topinfoblogs use occasionally. They ran this today. (Topinfoblogs is notorious for being allied with the QAnon extremists.)


He was referring to this item. WP banning Breitbart really "TRIGGERED" certain folks, eh?
https://www.newstarget.com/2019-05-08-f ... pedia.html

I'm actually amazed that all of this has had little or no effect on WP's insider gang. QAnon has managed to shut down all kinds of public events but WP goes right on its arrogant little way. I personally don't like Breitbart but banning Daily Mail references (which failed anyway!) was excessively stupid on their part. Screech screech on and on, by people on all sides of the political spectrum.

Screech screech on and on, by people on all sides of the political spectrum.

I looked at In These Times, a Left publication from the Midwest with a labor news focus. The last time they wrote about Wikipedia was in 2014: "Congress slapped with 10-day ban on editing Wikipedia entries". They use Wikipedia as a source for free photos of news events, but no real discussion in the past decade on the WMF. The Progressive of Madison, Wisconsin last did an article on Wikipedia in 2006 on how the staffers of Congressmen were deleting stuff out of Wikipedia articles. The only major magazine on the Left that I could find who wrote a lot about Wikipedia was Mother Jones, as can be seen here. As far as I can tell, there was very little critical writing about Wikipedia itself from the Left (outside of Mother Jones) in general, far more about the industries (computers, internet technology, data mining, etc.) and their union-busting techniques, such as use of short-term visa-ed "guestworkers", etc. instead of talking about the privacy issues (because everybody else was talking about the privacy issues).....Wikipedia skated by because the work is nonprofit (even though the WMF is sitting on millions of dollars in donations), that and there is nothing physical about Wikipedia beyond the servers and the WMF offices, unlike a factory farm, a hospital, an auto parts factory, or any of the many other workplaces In These Times, The Progressive, Jacobin, Mother Jones, etc. have written about.