I glanced at the recent entries on that wiki’s Talk page, and in seconds found someone calling the same attacker, Grosskreutz, an “innocent victim”. It took an entire month for anyone to contradict that blatant (given the known facts of the case) lie.
Wikipedia is a great resource for ‘dry’ subjects, but to pretend there isn’t any bias or propagandizing going on, on pages about contentious concepts or events, is just naive.
thats like calling Wikipedia “Propaganda”
Isn’t that why Grokipedia exists? Musk more or less said exactly that.
oh yeah, i forgot grokpedia is a thing.
Years later, there is still politically-motivated misinformation people are trying to correct on the Wikipedia page about the Kenosha unrest shooting, as one example. To this day, it falsely describes Gaige Grosskreutz as a “paramedic” (beginning of second paragraph under the linked heading) when he is not, and was not, on that day (which was in 2020).
I glanced at the recent entries on that wiki’s Talk page, and in seconds found someone calling the same attacker, Grosskreutz, an “innocent victim”. It took an entire month for anyone to contradict that blatant (given the known facts of the case) lie.
Wikipedia is a great resource for ‘dry’ subjects, but to pretend there isn’t any bias or propagandizing going on, on pages about contentious concepts or events, is just naive.
i think this take is good,but i mean Wikipedia anyone can edit it.
it has a rather insular culture though. like it’s overall a benefit but the major problems are:
that said, there’s a reason conservatives fear both it and the internet archive