You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
-7 points
17 points

Honestly doesn’t seem like a big deal to me. The concept behind Wikipedia is that it is a self correcting community. There was never a chance no one contributing would have ulterior motives, but that doesn’t mean it has a lasting or large impact.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

The methods that Wikipedia uses to determine appropriate sources and correcting “bad edits” is highly susceptible to status quo bias from it’s home country. This means that Wikipedia has a very heavy bias towards history from a US perspective. In most situations, it doesn’t really matter. However if you’re trying to look into political research (or anything else controversial) it’s a very poor tool. Governments love this setup, because this knowledge manipulation seems innocuous until it isn’t.

Edit: since it seems folks are already a couple mugs of eggnog deep, I’d like to clarify my point. There are legitimate and worthwhile criticisms of Wikipedia, but none worthy of mass defunding. We shouldn’t let some fascist like Musk control the conversation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Agree, but cut donation won’t resolve such problems, and whatever #SpaceKaren want to happen to the Wikipedia would benefit the US even more in detriment of all the world.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

The cia and fbi don’t have a lasting or large impact…? Are you high?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Are you high? I was obviously saying if someone edits out misinformation, its impact has been abated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Relevance to the conversation at hand?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Political Weirdos

!political_weirdos@lemmy.world

Create post

A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.

  • Focus on weird behaviors and beliefs
  • Follow Iemmy.world TOS
  • Don’t be a jerk

Community stats

  • 2.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 177

    Posts

  • 2.5K

    Comments

Community moderators