• NutWrench@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    Also, if your moderator is rejecting Wikipedia links as “propaganda” then they have no business being a moderator. Wikipedia is one of the last, best sources of information on the Internet that isn’t biased, corporate-sponsored bullsh*t. Those mods are either UP TO something or have been bonked on the head.

    Since you’re never going to win an argument with a moderator with an agenda, you can save yourself a lot of drama and pain by moving to a community that is beyond their reach.

      • NutWrench@lemmy.mlEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        In the real world, reality is determined by objective facts, not by your “point of view.” You’re not Obi-wan Kenobi.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Wikipedia is one of the last, best sources of information on the Internet that isn’t biased, corporate-sponsored bullsh*t.

      Instead it’s bullshit built upon elaborate bureaucracy which has it’s own layers of issues depending on exactly what topic/field we’re talking about.

      The biggest and most obvious flaw being that it’s more or less explicitly designed to fail spectacularly as regards any topic that the media doesn’t want to talk about (for example, anything that might make the media look bad) because there’s going to be an intentional lack of “reliable sources” on those topics.

      The definition of a “reliable source” is another - there’s a fair bit of jockeying on that which functionally biases WP. Especially when you start looking at what disqualified a given source from being “reliable” and start to notice that the bar seems to be set very unevenly depending on the particular source and how well liked it is by certain power-editors.

      It’s good enough for anything that’s not politically contentious to anyone, but I would never use it for anything other than a vague overview and starting point for other sources to dig into.

      • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 months ago

        OK that’s all fair enough. But isn’t this just a situation of humans being humans? Blaming Wikipedia for it is like blaming the United Nations for the lack of world peace.

        Not saying you’re wrong, exactly, but I also think you don’t have an idea, realistically, of how to make Wikipedia function better on controversial subjects. I certainly don’t. It’s easy to bash Wikipedia, like it’s easy to bash the UN. In the meantime, cynicism is corrosive and Wikipedia is all we have.