Is this dailymail style editorial appropriate for Wikipedia?

To play the devil's advocate: citing Laura Loomer's mug as an example is a slander to Mar-a-Lago–faced folks everywhere. Her "signature look" is best considered as an anti-model for future surgeons and operees.

I frankly didn’t know much about Kristi Noam until the most recent South Park piqued my curiosity. I found this fascinating gem of an article diving into a wikipedia rabbit hole.

Despicable, really.

So now it's suddenly ok to ridicule the appearance of women Weren't they supposed to be their allies? What a bunch of sc*mbags.

Never giving a cent to Wikipedia ever, as it is clear it is now a political platform, away from its intended purpose, and for one very specific country.

How much have you given in the past?

That doesn't make any difference.

Weird.

It does. If you've never donated to Wikipedia, then saying you'll never donate means nothing, as you weren't likely to start anyway. It would have all the weight of a vegan telling us they're going to start boycotting a local steakhouse.

Me donating or not donating does not make Wikipedia more or less political.

It's so dumb that I have to explicitly state this, but apparently is necessary.

But it does mean that your previous statement doesn't mean anything.

It's like me pledging to stop donating to the Urbandale High School Band Program. I've never donated before, and I never planned to anyway, so why even make the statement?

Very strange! This article had the opposite effect on me. I just donated.

Yeah, cool.

The article linked doesn't ridicule anyone.