The best feature about Wikipedia is the ability to dig through the history of each article to see just how much woke activism has destroyed certain articles over the last 5-10 years.... I can see Wikipedia taking that ability away soon.
Slowly but surely from 2014 to 2021, this article went from one describing facts about a delusional 18th-century woman to an article VALIDATING that insane delusion. Notice they even cropped the drawing of her to remove her real birth name.
And that change is a perfect illustration of a common trend among a lot of articles these days - virtually all of the "citations" come from 2 obscure books, one from 2009 and one from 2015. A handful of "academics" write a book or paper or something about their pet insanity, and suddenly it becomes "noteworthy" and the articles get updated.
The best feature about Wikipedia is the ability to dig through the history of each article to see just how much woke activism has destroyed certain articles over the last 5-10 years.... I can see Wikipedia taking that ability away soon.
Best example here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Universal_Friend&oldid=985462160 (2020 version)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Universal_Friend&oldid=594585082 (2014 version)
Slowly but surely from 2014 to 2021, this article went from one describing facts about a delusional 18th-century woman to an article VALIDATING that insane delusion. Notice they even cropped the drawing of her to remove her real birth name.
And that change is a perfect illustration of a common trend among a lot of articles these days - virtually all of the "citations" come from 2 obscure books, one from 2009 and one from 2015. A handful of "academics" write a book or paper or something about their pet insanity, and suddenly it becomes "noteworthy" and the articles get updated.