What year did they go from being pretty good to the ideologically captured website?
>>17958221>When did Wikipedia start to go downhill?The moment you typed in wikipedia.org for the first time in your life.Harsh, yes, but truth.
>>179582211 of the founders was interviewed awhile back and he was griping about "ideological capture"
>>17958221In a sense, when ol' dude felt he needed to found Conservapedia because even back then it was painfully obvious the website had its biases.
>A website that's open to contributors and editors is "bias"Maybe reality is just bias against whatever schizo extremism you subscribe to OP. Sorry Wikipedia isn't going to glaze Hitler enough, maybe try AI instead
>>17958221My man it's literally a user contributed website. Go uncapture it.
>>17958221when jannies started deleting everything funlook up "deletionists"
>>17958221Explain how it's "ideologically captured" without screeching about muh leftists muh trannies muh leftists muh jews
>>17958463Due to the way wikipedia editors work it functions like an oligarchy which is unsurprising to anyone desuhttps://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/8/2/14
>>17958221I'd say 1960 roughly.
>>17958463it's spelled 'biased'. what are you doing here while being illiterate?
>>17958699>>17958463>>17958263usersbase full of tranny and blm
>>17958510It's russophobic,
>>17958502>>17944501
>>17958463Wikipedia is an anti-Christian propaganda institution and you're a mindless onions-eating liberal idiot that gleefully swallows whatever the establishment feeds him, you don't deserve to be called a human being, drone
>>17958221
>>17958221Hire wumao/sjw tier editorhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ilrzI9Pa7Q
After the Seigenthaler incident, everything went to shit.
>>17959203That anon is overreacting, lmfao.
>>17959152Everytime I look at the religious tab for any ethnic groups, they always get it wrong, most minorities don’t practice their ethnic religion anymore, and either are Christian or Muslim.
>>17958221Ive been an editor on there for like 5 years and the userbase is absolute dogshit. They are mostly far left cranks and their profiles have antifa, BLM, communist, and tranny shit all over them. They all dogpile certain articles and break the websites own rules, but I find its getting less bad now. Around 2020 the site was unusable.
>>17958221Wikipedia will always represent jews, because its filled with young ideological privileged people who have too much time on their hands. They think they know better than everyone else, and insist o. Their words being locked in place forever. This is just a reality of the type of people who have the time and motivation to argue in the back pages of Wikipedia.4chan will always be a place of random ideas from people sitting on toilets who have less free time, and dont really care if their words are lost or saved by others.
>GRRR WIKIPEDIA IS BADAnon, you can see the sources.You can literally see what is being cited to make the claim on any wikipedia page.>but there's no sourcethen the information is worthless>but the source is dogshitsee aboveIt's the same as any medium for learning history; it is as good as its sources. If you cannot comprehend this then you are worse at studying history than a teenager.
>>17958221>permanently bans anyone who identifies as a pedophile either on or off site>but you can still edit wikipedia if you've killed a child, if you're a terrorist, if you're a war criminal, if you're a cannibal, if you've killed a million people etc.
>>17961746>this is a good website if you just shift through all the dogshit!Wikipedia has a guidline on acceptable sources. For current event stuff they allow tabloids like Mother Jones, Salon, Buzzfeed ect by dont allow Fox News. By the same metric, they also allow CNN. They way that the site is laid out, it makes the bias impossible to avoid. Wikipedia is good for an introduction into a subject as a level 1 surface level thing just to teach you the basics, thats it. The sort of wikipedia intellectuals that it produces are insufferable
>>17961748Yeah, I agree with you. My point was more that people getting pissed off at what a site/whatever tells them about history rather than checking the source material to see if it's even worth acknowledging, they've failed the first hurdle of learning history.I use wikipedia the odd time for that level 1 surface stuff for histories I'm totally unfamiliar with, just to see where to begin.
