Re:Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court
by fwipsy on Saturday October 26, 2024 @10:48AM
(#41955066)
It sounds like you're accusing Wikipedia of being both too easy to edit ("everyone can write things there") and too restrictive about who can edit ("they don't care about facts... Crap editors and political propaganda.") It sounds like your real criticism is that Wikipedia has biases and won't let you correct them. Can you provide links to some examples of bias on Wikipedia so that we can make up for ourselves how bad this is?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court
by Viliam1234 on Saturday October 26, 2024 @12:28PM
(#41955776)
> Can you provide links to some examples of bias on Wikipedia so that we can make up for ourselves how bad this is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...
Here is an example of a Wikipedia admin who spent years harassing a blogger (and a community the blogger belongs to), and it took a lot of effort and a lot of luck to make other admins admit that this was a bad thing and that it should stop.
(This is not the worst example I know of, but it is an example where Wikipedia changed its mind later, so you can agree that this was bad even if you trust Wikipedia.)
Re:Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court
by ErikBjare on Monday October 28, 2024 @01:46PM
(#41973924)
David Gerard strikes again
Re:Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court
by gjsman-1000 on Saturday October 26, 2024 @01:09PM
(#41956088)
One very recent anecdotal example involving narwhals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0L-3FfkXfM
Let's just say Wikipedia made an absurd lie, for years from an obvious misunderstanding, and a viciously protective editor got involved...