https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... /archive11
It has rightly been delisted, which means it can no longer claim to be Wikipedia's best work. And if you check their criteria, what Wikipedia means by best work, is effectively what Brittanica would call their minimum quality standard. One criteria being, of course, a neutral article.
The comments in the review prove Larry Sanger was right, that this page in particular was naught but a giant love letter to the Democrat cause.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -gone.html
There is one particular summation in the review that damns Wikipedia to pieces....Sanger claimed .... the site's article on Barack Obama 'completely fails to mention many well-known scandals.'
To translate that into normal speak, it means this biography isn't biased because a few determined individuals up to no good have been fighting off the wider community trying to write a neutral biography, it means that the biased article is the natural result of it being editing by the general bag of fucwkittery and general leftist leanings that is the Wikipedia "community".There is not a systematic pattern representing WP:OWNERSHIP, rather a persistent reluctance to write a neutral biography representing both the good and the bad of Obama.
It may seem odd that Wikipedia is now admitting Larry was right, but that's the flaw of Wikipedia. They do have people there who know how to write a neutral biography. They just make up a tiny percentage of the whole "community".
To give you some idea, at time of writing, only 0.09% of their over six million articles are Featured, and you can see from Barack Obama how many of even those might not be what they claim.
Believe it or not, others in the Wikipedia community are claiming this is proof Larry was wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... was_biased?
Jimmy Wales hasn't looked into the case, but he's sure there can't be anything wrong, because Wikipedia!. C'est la vie.
Stupid fucks. But a cult is what a cult does. Denying their own observable reality being one such thing.
No doubt Wikipediocracy will also claim that somehow this act of review and delisting proves Wikipedia works and isn't biased. Once you have sold out, you have to keep going regardless of how stupid you look in hindsight.