I once removed an "unverifiable" slur about a minor celebrity that got reverted immediately. It was from the Guardian, who even admitted in their piece that it was hearsay. One of Wikipedia's creepy sentinels kindly explained to me why:
"...we don't try to determine where a news source gets its information from or how we know it to be true. Instead, we consider the news source's reputation for accuracy."
Just flat out admitting that you can lie about someone, as long as it is from the right liar.
Instead, we consider the news source's reputation for accuracy.
Literally the problem. I think everyone here knows already, but wikipedia's move (which started at least 10 years ago) to filter and rank content based on arbitrarily-defined reliable sources was a scam to lock down the narrative. There's only a few major corporations and wire services in the entire English speaking world that decide the truth for every media outlet. Still others use wikipedia for reference, which creates a feedback loop and keeps people in a bubble. It's like a semi-decentralized Ministry of Truth. The deep state's proposed department of misinformation would have simply formalized it.
That's the heart of every Wikipedia problem. Even if you got rid of every tin pot dictator with a personal stake, it would still have the same problems because of that.
They only allow things to be on articles that are reported from elsewhere, no original research, and base which articles are worth on vague metrics that can barely be stated out loud.
I once removed an "unverifiable" slur about a minor celebrity that got reverted immediately. It was from the Guardian, who even admitted in their piece that it was hearsay. One of Wikipedia's creepy sentinels kindly explained to me why:
"...we don't try to determine where a news source gets its information from or how we know it to be true. Instead, we consider the news source's reputation for accuracy."
Just flat out admitting that you can lie about someone, as long as it is from the right liar.
Literally the problem. I think everyone here knows already, but wikipedia's move (which started at least 10 years ago) to filter and rank content based on arbitrarily-defined reliable sources was a scam to lock down the narrative. There's only a few major corporations and wire services in the entire English speaking world that decide the truth for every media outlet. Still others use wikipedia for reference, which creates a feedback loop and keeps people in a bubble. It's like a semi-decentralized Ministry of Truth. The deep state's proposed department of misinformation would have simply formalized it.
That's the heart of every Wikipedia problem. Even if you got rid of every tin pot dictator with a personal stake, it would still have the same problems because of that.
They only allow things to be on articles that are reported from elsewhere, no original research, and base which articles are worth on vague metrics that can barely be stated out loud.