You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Great Cultural Revolution
Wikipedia's Own Co-Founder Warns His Site Is Compromised by Leftists and Can't Be Trusted
2021-07-22
[Red State] For years, Wikipedia has been a source of quick and dirty knowledge about any given subject under the sun, but over time it’s become a leftist propaganda site where reality is whatever the leftist volunteers editing the site want it to be.

This isn’t just an opinion. This is coming straight from the mouth of Wikipedia’s own co-creator who is now sounding the alarm on the fact that his own site is now compromised by uncompromising leftists who are erasing anything and altering everything that is inconvenient to the left’s narrative.

According to the Daily Mail, Wikipedia co-creator Larry Sanger appeared on the "UnHeard" podcast to discuss the site’s descent from a crowdsourced online encyclopedia to a leftist propaganda site:
Related:
Larry Sanger: 2021-07-06 Wikipedia Has Become A One-Sided 'Thought Police' For Liberals, Cofounder Warns
Larry Sanger: 2021-03-01 Citing Wikipedia's capture by the left, site's co-founder launching free-speech-friendly competitor
Posted by:Besoeker

#20  Wikipedia was good for some things non-political. The problem is that everything has become politicized in the political, cultural and information wars currently going on in this country.

No doubt Biden's entry was sanitized by someone; he is incapable of doing it at this stage--maybe Mr. Plaigerism never was capable at any time.
Posted by: Thraigum Anguth7272   2021-07-22 17:03  

#19  It's just that there is a lot of knowledge and history for the leftists to get out there and corrupt, even if they stay on it 24/7, a million 'persons' at a time.

I go to to wikipedia for example for standard facts, which no one would want to change, like WTF are gravitons, or the chronology of the Ummayad caliphate, which will surely be zealously documented there.

As for the most important stuff, we've already had our education in the darkest, shittiest reality of the world around us, gentlemen. If it's opinions you want, you won't go to wikipedia that's a given.
Posted by: Dron66046   2021-07-22 14:28  

#18  Democrats: Math is opinion.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2021-07-22 14:08  

#17  Everyone preppin' for zombies.

Ends up being mummies.

Mummie may I? Mummie may I?
Posted by: swksvolFF   2021-07-22 13:41  

#16  ^Remembered how long I know you?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2021-07-22 13:37  

#15  Ref 14: No to be argumentative, but wat make u an authority on ars.....

Oh wait !
Posted by: Besoeker   2021-07-22 13:18  

#14  Thing, drop Aristotelian logic. Just because Fauci is an a$$hole - and I knew that about him since the 90es - doesn't mean that masks don't work, HCQ does*, and mRNA vaccine is genetic engineering.

*You really think all these poor countries wouldn't use something cheap that works to appease Fauci?
p.s. China is a poor country, and I'm sure they did experiments on Uighurs/political prisoners with HCQ, Invectowhatever etc..., and wouldn't use anything that worked?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2021-07-22 12:42  

#13  
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2021-07-22 12:26  

#12  g(r)om, think about this: if the guy who contracted the creation of the virus was an ecological nut, there's a lot of crossover between the people who made the virus, the people who told the actual lies about treating the virus, and the ones who do the global warming hoax to deindustrialize the west.

(And back on the road again...)
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2021-07-22 12:24  

#11  Fauxi followers appear to be dwindling in numbers.
Posted by: Ebbavirt Peacock8582   2021-07-22 09:41  

#10  Not a 'single source' yapping expert.

Good point. Who does Fauxi believe besides himself?
Posted by: M. Murcek   2021-07-22 09:33  

#9  Not a 'single source' yapping expert. At least that is to your credit.
Posted by: Besoeker   2021-07-22 09:14  

#8  Oh, so suddenly you don't believe in the Holy Blessed Peer Review?

I believe in coherence of data from multiple sources. As to the peer-review: sure 90% of peer-reviewed articles are garbage. But 99.9999% of not peer-reviewed "scientific" articles are garbage.
Especially when it comes from people who admit to ideological bias.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2021-07-22 08:53  

#7  In a corrupt system Sturgeon's Law's 10% is woefully optimistic.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2021-07-22 08:41  

#6  ^^Anyways, you always have to use judgement - even in peer-reviewed (Sturgeon's Law).
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2021-07-22 08:39  

#5  Oh, so suddenly you don't believe in the Holy Blessed Peer Review?
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2021-07-22 08:37  

#4  It shouldn’t be — it’s been a hot research field for two decades, and data has been accumulating.
Posted by: trailing wife   2021-07-22 08:36  

#3  ^AGW is opinion.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2021-07-22 08:32  

#2  it depends on the subject, g(r)omgoru. I remember a major brouhaha some year back because a small group of editors was erasing and deceitfully editing articles on global warming. After some years of this nonsense a bunch of people were fired for it. Articles around Israel and Jewish history, politics and politicians — any politicized or controversial subject, really — generally finds itself being repeatedly edited to shape reader opinion.
Posted by: trailing wife   2021-07-22 08:29  

#1  Nonsense. The technical articles are OK - if, sometimes, not up to date - knowledge does develop. The opinion articles always were garbage.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2021-07-22 08:10  

00:00