• @Siegfried@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -18
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Some parts of wikipedia are biased as fuck… specially the ones covering politics of populist countries. There are armies of tankies bending reality to their likes and needs.

        • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 years ago

          Exactly. There was a page for the Jacobin founder that was missing a controversy over what he said about the Tsar’s children, but my edit that added it in was ultimately removed – and I totally understand why. I remember when it happened at the time, but when I looked for actual proof and sources, the only things I could find were very weak. The tweets had been deleted and only one had been dubiously archived.

          Long story short, I had no evidence to back it up, even though I know I saw it. And that’s just how the cookie crumbles. If there isn’t a good source, even for something that did happen, it isn’t admissible. I can’t expect someone to take me at my word only, and I respect that Wikipedia doesn’t let that fly.

    • @bigkix@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -332 years ago

      Hahahaha, oh wow… Wikipedia is so biased on some topics that heads are spinning while reading some pages.

      • @ours@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        132 years ago

        Yeah, it’s not perfect and there is some drama but it’s still amazing and one of the few remaining pieces from the dream many of us had for the Internet before almost everything else sold out.