Skip to comments.Wikipedia Bans Any Use of Breitbart Links in Articles
Posted on 10/07/2018 3:36:05 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Want a place where you can gain a full understanding of any topic, from any perspective? Then Wikipedia is not the place for you.
The editors who cant seem to prevent the California GOP from being listed as Nazis on their platform have decided that Breitbart cant be used as a source or reference.
One editor wrote, I think that Breitbart is not a reliable source. Its my view that we should not source anything to Breitbart other than strictly factual and uncontroversial facts about Breitbart on the articles related to Breitbart and its people.
In a post announcing the change, Wikipedia administrator Fish+Karate (whose fondness for ichthyology and martial arts make this admin very trustworthy indeed) noted that There is a very clear consensus here that yes, Breitbart should be deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
I only trust Wiki for technical data.
Nope, no bias here
Who cares. Anyone using a relying upon Wikipedia is pretty ignorant to begin with. No one should be surprised that the site is an echo chamber of views and bans those sources they dont agree with.
Funny, well informed people know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Once upon a time I was a fairly active editor over there. But all the vandalism and bias eventually made it not worthwhile. Whats the point of making contributions if some troll or partisan doesn’t get to it, it’ll just be trashed and completely overwritten by some garden variety pendant or busybody 10x over. Now its completely a mess since the fad has died down and only a hardcore contingent of unemployed libtards at Starbucks have the free time to remain as editors. Its been divided into fiefdoms and don’t you dare cross the lord of the manor. A favorite tactic nowadays is to frontload the first section of articles about conservatives with negative information while doing the opposite for liberal topics. Its really blatant. For technical topics its still an okay resource but the state of things is sad. Whats worse is its more and more considered the default goto reference.
No loss for Breitbart.
However. I do wish Breitbart would proof write their stories. Some of the authors are really bad.
Also, some of their headlines promise more than the story delivers.
Breitbart does too many stories about the opinions of stupid celebrities.
Rely on it for news and facts about the real world? Never even occurred to me. That would be just as silly as watching the Daily Show or Jimmy Kimmel or Steven Colbert for news.
Sounds like wikipedia is averse to the truth because it doesn’t fit their narrative.
Wikipedia just declared itself worthless as a source.
There’s a large contingent of ex Breitbart guys who write for Townhall. Townhall has better access to the White House and they know how to make fast reports like The Hill.
Leftists “weeding” their garden of pure ideology. F’ them with a broom.
During the feminist debacle surrounding the Kavanaugh confirmation, I suspect that Breitbart gained many readers who had previously been spending time on Fox News.
It’s not for nothing that Wikipedia entries are known for being riddled with errors. You can’t believe anything posted there.
First they came for stormfront. Then Alex Jones...
But theyll still happily source CNN and MSNBC and the Nation and the Atlantic
Don’t compare the first two to the last. They’re more related to the left-wing websites, showing what’s barely under their surface.
Look you can find stormfront to be a bunch of stupid twits but they were unpersoned from the internet using the same tactics that theyre using to i person Alex Jones and now Breitbart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.