This rumor about US gov intervention seems to be unsubstantiated. Where is the proof?

Government intervention? No probably not. Politically motivated wiki editors with the power to lock pages and revert edits? Absolutely! The edit history is right there and it's plain to see for yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&action=...

I went through the first page of edits presented on mobile, there is some editing contention amongst multiple editors about whether the2quarter definition needs to be in the first paragraph of the summary or not (In all versions it is mentioned in the body of the page). TBH, having edited Wikipedia in the past, I've seen worse for less.

The thing is, everybody is politically motivated, whether your actions directly affect an organized political party or not. Labeling these specific edits as such is not really saying anything. If there is clearer evidence of a pattern then sure, let's have at it. Until then I remain unconvinced that there is any sort of conspiracy involved here.

Probably no conspiracy - like you say, everyone is at least a little bit politically motivated. Without invoking a conspiracy, however, it's plainly obvious that Wikipedia is a high value target for manipulation and every political party, 3 letter agency and PR firm has some incentive to obtain and maintain influence over certain Wikipedia articles. Much of the influence is actually exercised indirectly by influencing virtually every media publication that Wikipedia will accept as a valid source.

> The response from @GSR6669 resonates with me:

Was also corrected by people replying pointing out that this didn't actually happen.

The point that is (probably) wrong is "at request". The remaining part however is true. You can see it in the edits and discussions. In Germany the Wikipedia has a bunch of people with almost universal power in the Wikipedia - inofficially called "Politburo" (by Wikipedians that had the pleasure of editing one of their entries). These are (to our knowledge at least) not directly controlled by gov, but they however do what is in their interest.

Wikipedia is being corrupted and you should be aware of it. Having a (single) source of truth* has to end like this.

edit: *: More precisely institutions and people treating it like a single source of truth.

Wikipedia locks edits at the most mundane of topics to avoid/end edit wars. HN also has anti-flamewar features for similar reasons - no conspiracy theory needed. "Recession" seems like ripe target for edit wars by political activists due to topicality (and I'm guessing "King Charles" too)

Having a (single) source of truth* has to end like this.

Why?

Among the reasons is that it comes with great power and authority and therefore attracts the wrong people. It is really effective to slander people for example. Another reason is that an established source of truth is inflexible and hard to change from the outside even if it is wrong, because it is used as reference for the truth (circular logic).

Using Wikipedia as an example: Everyone can edit Wikipedia, however if your edit survives is determined by a hierarchical structure that involves people (with an opinion). It doesn't need a big conspiracy, but only a few people that select which people may act on their behalf. A concrete example would be the Wikipedian Feliks in German Wikipedia who is by now convicted of defamation (via Wikipedia) and still remains part of the "Politburo" of Wikipedia altho obviously violating the official ethos.

In regards to changing Wikipedia, try removing opinions (or just circular citation) from an entry of Feliks or Kopilot (or anyone of the Politburo) and look what happens. Most likely your account is gone, but if you're lucky your edit is just reverted.

Much of it is how Wikipedia is being treated. It is/was an excellent reference book for quickly looking up information about a topic - well, just like an encyclopedia, however it's bad as a source of truth.

What's a good source of truth?

Does the topic matter? Is it binary? Why is it a good or bad source of truth, not some level of trust?

Nitpicks

You talk about circular references, I assume you mean someone cites wikipeida which then cites...something else? Either way Wikipeidia isn't a primary source and if someone uses it as one they are wrong and that's the fault of the person.

How would someone defame someone on Wikipedia without providing false sources or no source at all. If they did it could be discovered and changed. This could happen on social media, news organizations, books, or in person. What source of information is immune to this ? (If none are then I don't believe it's a valid criticism)

You say that people who want to corrupt will be attracted to it. Aren't there protections against that? Does it happen often? Is it so frequent that you have zero trust or you think it's "bad source of truth"

> What's a good source of truth?

In my opinion none.

> You say that people who want to corrupt will be attracted to it. Aren't there protections against that? Does it happen often? Is it so frequent that you have zero trust or you think it's "bad source of truth"

Why are people so obsessed with a source of truth? We never had that and we still don't disregard how much we pretend that we have or wish we had one. It's not the first time in history we pretended that one exists either, but it usually ends bad.

He replied emphatically that this didn’t happen. Is there any proof for this?

It's maybe not quite a dramatic coverup but there most definitely was a concerted effort to suppress a specific definition of the term "recession" in preference for the "politically correct" version. See for yourself in the edit history of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&action=...

[Citation needed]