I can remember numerous issues down through the years where pages were taken captive by ideologues who reversed any change of dissent, any change that made a good point, etc. It's easy to fall into the lazy trap of thinking "both sides do it, it's extreme on both sides," but that isn't really the case. There is a great asymmetry here -- the Left is way more motivated, dedicated, and effective at shutting down dissent and controlling language, and therefore thought.
Everything comes full circle. Before you know it, encyclopedia Britannica salesmen will be showing up at your door soon.
(07-06-2021, 01:11 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Everything comes full circle. Before you know it, encyclopedia Britannica salesmen will be showing up at your door soon.
Now-Now.. Sales 'person'..
(07-06-2021, 01:16 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2021, 01:11 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Everything comes full circle. Before you know it, encyclopedia Britannica salesmen will be showing up at your door soon.
Now-Now.. Sales 'person'..
That's a lot of weight to carry around. Pretty sure this is one job where pronoun bias wouldn't be argued.
Wiki is going the way of Snopes..
I actually use to throw a $20 bill Wikipedia's way about once a year because I appreciate the quick reference knowledge they provide on science and technology stuff. Then I opened up one of their pages on something (I can't recall the subject - it might have been NASA related) and it was so full of irrelevant and out of context political content that it was shocking. Naturally it was pee-in-the-pants TDS rant material. It read like something a sky screamer would write, yet there it was on a Wikipedia page. Probably written by DragonFury.
I still use them for science and technology references, but it would feel dirty and dishonest to give them any more money. It's the same reason I stopped my subscription to Scientific American, long before things became as divided as they are now. It was obvious the editors, 10-12 years ago, were willing to bastardize a scientific platform to advance a social agenda.
(07-06-2021, 03:18 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I actually use to throw a $20 bill Wikipedia's way about once a year because I appreciate the quick reference knowledge they provide on science and technology stuff. Then I opened up one of their pages on something (I can't recall the subject - it might have been NASA related) and it was so full of irrelevant and out of context political content that it was shocking. Naturally it was pee-in-the-pants TDS rant material. It read like something a sky screamer would write, yet there it was on a Wikipedia page. Probably written by DragonFury.
I still use them for science and technology references, but it would feel dirty and dishonest to give them any more money. It's the same reason I stopped my subscription to Scientific American, long before things became as divided as they are now. It was obvious the editors, 10-12 years ago, were willing to bastardize a scientific platform to advance a social agenda.
I've never contributed monetarily, but I initially liked the concept of Wikipedia since they would cite sources for the
facts that they present. However, depending on the subject matter many of the sources supplied as "fact" are opinion pieces with almost all of them leaning to left-leaning and misleading (same thing) opinion pieces.
Wikipedia is all about who edits it.