[ifinnegan]

Leftists destroy everything.

Google the same. Google was fantastic. It pulled out everything, returned hundreds of pages. Nuggets of gold could be found on page 100 for those who sifted through the spam.

Now it is information control.

[billyboy15]

The co founder should shut the site down.

[cymbeline]

Need to know about the atomic nucleus or the history of the pencil, use Wikipedia. Need to know about anything with a political overtone, avoid it.

[AndyTheBear]

On non controversial technical subjects Wikipedia is useful. On controversial subjects its worthless.

[cdcdawg]

I just learned that Captain Obvious was a co-founder of Wikipedia. That said, I’m glad he spoke up. It probably won’t do much good, but there might be people out there who still don’t understand that the Left controls and patrols the internet.

[Chode]

[Inyo-Mono]

Bookmark.

[econjack]

A lot of mainstream news stories are broken only in Fox News, the Daily Mail, and the New York Post—all of which are banned from use as sources by Wikipedia.

Time to get the word out on Wikipedia...

[shanover]

I honestly can’t name much that the left hasn’t destroyed.

[SmokingJoe]

Just found another online encyclopedia. Did it once before. Can do it again.

[jroehl]

After spending more than 10 years contributing to Wikipedia, I stumble across it's article on Parler.com.

The first paragraph states:

Parler is an American microblogging and social networking service. It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists. Posts on the service often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories such as QAnon. Journalists have described Parler as an alt-tech alternative to Twitter, and users include those banned from mainstream social networks or who oppose their moderation policies.

I stated on the articles talk page that I believe the opening paragraph was obviously not neutral. After some ridiculous back and forth, I postulated that there may be individuals arguing in favor, of breaking standard Wikipedia policy, and they might be on the payroll of Twitter. Which is also against Wikipedia policy.

I was immediately banned for life.

Wikipedia is priceless for things like 18th century French art.

Wikipedia is poisoned for anything to do with politics or contemporaneous public policy.

[cgbg]

Wikipedia serves an important purpose.

The power elites change their claims and ideology moment by moment. The peons need a place where they can find the latest politically correct view so they will not be canceled.
If they check Wikipedia every five minutes they should be “safe”.

[MayflowerMadam]

Well duh. How many years has he been in a coma? This has been going on forEVer, it seems.

[daniel1212]

The overt bias charge is overall true in the moral and political area, though not to the extremes of the Boston Globe, and without without a semblance of balance. And seasoned liberals on that site can often use their interpretation of one or more of the vast number of policies to censure what they do not like. Try to find much of anything negative about LBJ (apart from the Vietnam war and personal dislikes) in its extensive page on him.

[daniel1212]

"A lot of mainstream news stories are broken only in Fox News, the Daily Mail, and the New York Post—all of which are banned from use as sources by Wikipedia.” " Indeed, as shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources

[Enlightened1]

BTTT