Wikipedia used to be dominated by nerds. So much that they had to delete a bunch of articles that were "fancruft" (i.e. someone would make a wiki page about some character from the Star Wars novels). Then it got more professional, but at its core it was still nerds.
It was always left-leaning, but in the last five or six years it's gone off the deep-end. Every article that somehow relates to race or gender sounds like it was written by someone with 3 liberal arts degrees and $200,000 in student debt.
My favorite is how every reference to a black person as a "slave" has been replaced by "enslaved person." "Slave owners" are now "enslavers" or "slavers." Which makes no sense, because those terms used to mean someone who captured or procured slaves (i.e. "Kuante Kinte was captured by Mandika and English slavers."). Of course, this doesn't apply to white slaves. Spartacus is still described as a "slave" still, as are the "Chistian slaves" liberated in the Barbary Wars.
Their neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, which was the cornerstone of Wikipedia when I started reading it in 2003 or so basically means now that not all points of view are equal.
And they even have a "deadnaming" policy now, too. If you aren't familiar with the lastest SJW lingo, if someone who is born a man decides to call himself a woman and changes his name, if you refer to him by his old name, you are deadnaming him. Wikipedia's deadnaming policy now is that you shouldn't mention someone's birth name unless they were well known before they transitioned (i.e. Bruce Jenner).
Wikipedia claims to have a no censorship policy and also claims to be an encyclopedia, but they deliberately omit information. It's kind of like how after George Floyd (PBUH) Ascended into Heaven, newspapers and wire agencies like the AP decided to stop showing mugshots of criminals and to stop printing the names of people arrested for misdemeanors. Of course, it's completely fine to doxx people who get into an argument in public with a black person.
I was watching Hulu and an Amazon commercial came on. The plot was two Nigerian immigrant lesbians falling in love during quarantine. After that was an Audi commercial with a black danger hair dyke driving said car. And then a Nintendo commercial with gay dads. I wanted to puke.
They always insert blacks into the most improbable situations: financial advisor, Dad, lawn mower, home maintainer, fitness guru, and museum goer are all a few that I've seen recently.
I remember seeing some survey done in Asia that from our media people there were under the impression America was at least 40% black or something, and that was years ago.
It's Galloop's and they do it once few years. Same for alphabet people percentage estimates. They also chronicle the skyrocketing rise of alphabet self identifications, especially among the new generations (and they only poll the adults).
It's is often written by the the "feminist edit-o-trons" (or something like that, don't remember this idiotic name), the PAID events being often organized by the Wikimedia Foundation for many years.
Wikipedia used to be dominated by nerds. So much that they had to delete a bunch of articles that were "fancruft" (i.e. someone would make a wiki page about some character from the Star Wars novels). Then it got more professional, but at its core it was still nerds.
It was always left-leaning, but in the last five or six years it's gone off the deep-end. Every article that somehow relates to race or gender sounds like it was written by someone with 3 liberal arts degrees and $200,000 in student debt.
My favorite is how every reference to a black person as a "slave" has been replaced by "enslaved person." "Slave owners" are now "enslavers" or "slavers." Which makes no sense, because those terms used to mean someone who captured or procured slaves (i.e. "Kuante Kinte was captured by Mandika and English slavers."). Of course, this doesn't apply to white slaves. Spartacus is still described as a "slave" still, as are the "Chistian slaves" liberated in the Barbary Wars.
Their neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, which was the cornerstone of Wikipedia when I started reading it in 2003 or so basically means now that not all points of view are equal.
And they even have a "deadnaming" policy now, too. If you aren't familiar with the lastest SJW lingo, if someone who is born a man decides to call himself a woman and changes his name, if you refer to him by his old name, you are deadnaming him. Wikipedia's deadnaming policy now is that you shouldn't mention someone's birth name unless they were well known before they transitioned (i.e. Bruce Jenner).
Wikipedia claims to have a no censorship policy and also claims to be an encyclopedia, but they deliberately omit information. It's kind of like how after George Floyd (PBUH) Ascended into Heaven, newspapers and wire agencies like the AP decided to stop showing mugshots of criminals and to stop printing the names of people arrested for misdemeanors. Of course, it's completely fine to doxx people who get into an argument in public with a black person.
I was watching Hulu and an Amazon commercial came on. The plot was two Nigerian immigrant lesbians falling in love during quarantine. After that was an Audi commercial with a black danger hair dyke driving said car. And then a Nintendo commercial with gay dads. I wanted to puke.
"Are you sure this will help us sell burgers?"
They always insert blacks into the most improbable situations: financial advisor, Dad, lawn mower, home maintainer, fitness guru, and museum goer are all a few that I've seen recently.
I remember seeing some survey done in Asia that from our media people there were under the impression America was at least 40% black or something, and that was years ago.
They should do a similar survey and ask people in Asia what percentage of Americans they think are gay.
It was a survey done in America actually.
It's Galloop's and they do it once few years. Same for alphabet people percentage estimates. They also chronicle the skyrocketing rise of alphabet self identifications, especially among the new generations (and they only poll the adults).
It's is often written by the the "feminist edit-o-trons" (or something like that, don't remember this idiotic name), the PAID events being often organized by the Wikimedia Foundation for many years.