Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source or another Biased Liberal Rag? Wikipedia Blacklists Epoch Times, Gateway Pundit for Russiagate Criticism
Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 4 months ago to Politics
As in previous cases, while a number of editors argued for allowing Epoch Times in some cases, left-wing and anti-Trump editors calling for a ban significantly outnumbered them in the discussion. Of those supporting a ban, editor Simonm223 notably has a history of editing favorable to China. Simon, a self-proclaimed socialist, has downplayed the re-education camps for Muslims, particularly Uyghurs, in Xinjiang province and repeatedly removed details about pro-Beijing politicians in Hong Kong associating with members of the Triad criminal organization. He also regularly defends the violent Antifa group and praised Antifa terrorist Wilhem van Spronsen’s attack on an ICE detention facility.
Gateway Pundit’s ban came from a proposal soon after the proposed ban for Epoch Times. The ban proposal came in response to editor “BullRangifer” removing a 2017 piece criticizing media silence on Ukraine colluding with Democrats to influence the 2016 election. The article was originally added to frame Gateway Pundit as “fueling conspiracy theories” related to the impeachment inquiry over Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In fact, the piece correctly noted Politico’s coverage of DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa soliciting Ukrainian interference and then-Democratic minority leader of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff expressing concerns about the reported interference.
Criticism of Gateway Pundit was harsher during the ban discussion, though still predominantly from left-wing editors. Some regarded the outlet as unreliable, but argued against a full sourcing ban as they believed some legitimate uses may exist. In addition to Simonm223, who also voted for the ban, editors advocating a ban included “Snooganssnoogans” and “Volunteer Marek” who each have a history of smearing the outlet on Wikipedia.
Gateway Pundit’s ban came from a proposal soon after the proposed ban for Epoch Times. The ban proposal came in response to editor “BullRangifer” removing a 2017 piece criticizing media silence on Ukraine colluding with Democrats to influence the 2016 election. The article was originally added to frame Gateway Pundit as “fueling conspiracy theories” related to the impeachment inquiry over Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In fact, the piece correctly noted Politico’s coverage of DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa soliciting Ukrainian interference and then-Democratic minority leader of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff expressing concerns about the reported interference.
Criticism of Gateway Pundit was harsher during the ban discussion, though still predominantly from left-wing editors. Some regarded the outlet as unreliable, but argued against a full sourcing ban as they believed some legitimate uses may exist. In addition to Simonm223, who also voted for the ban, editors advocating a ban included “Snooganssnoogans” and “Volunteer Marek” who each have a history of smearing the outlet on Wikipedia.
When it comes to politically charged issues, then the liberals control the dialog.
Many times when doing a search the warning comes up that the information needs updating. So the propaganda that Gateway Pundit is unreliable holds no water. They better clean their house first.
Don't these liberals get funding from Soros? Frequently they ask for money when I click Wiki's link.
My kids use the plural pronouns they/them/their. They also don't write out numbers under ten unless it's the first word of a sentence. They wouldn't think of hitting the space part twice after a period.
I think the language is evolving. I've only spoken Spanish proficiently for 25 years, yet I believe I have seen tiny bits of evolution in Spanish in that time.
https://youtu.be/GD2_bkNgX5I?t=60
The weirdest change I've seen is "kind of thing", as in "we should replace the IC that's getting hot and then reboot the user interface, kind of thing."
If it's political, expect propaganda. I have, for example, noticed over the years that the section on William Herschel talking about his 1801 observation of the linkage of sun spots and wheat prices (climate) has been steadily re-written to minimize it.
If Wikipedia posting and editing guidelines are violated, posts can be flagged as 'unsourced', etc, and these 'independent' editors can be and sometimes are banned by IP address and more. The guidelines require 'published' sources often other than those who know the most and who may be associated with the source given.
The question for this thread is: is there more to the Brietbart article in this case? Are the owners of Wikipedia behind the political banning and distortions or is this only the result of the usual way Wikipedia is run by defaulting to militant activists with free reign?
The owners / founders had a great idea. By not retaining editorial control, or by surrendering, they have allowed the takeover by progressivistas. Similar, 20th Century Motors?
In my declining usage I note more strident pleas for money, it would not bother me if it imploded.