• What's your definition of "abuse?"

    Wikipedia is a public site. It should be used by whoever wants to use it. End of story. It became big around 2001 so its from the MySpace age. It's literally an internet relic, assuming that the first web page was made in 1991. And it was created for the same reason as way earlier Internet projects. One example is project Euler. Project Euler was used to give people free eBooks. Let's say someone wants a quick solution to learning something, wikipedia is the answer.

    Now, where am I going with all of this? Well, no one should abuse it in the sense that no one should take it over and make it left wing. But if a hardcore member of a left wing party wants to go and submit knowledge, and that knowledge is correct, why shouldn't they?

  • No, Wikipedia will become increasingly unreliable and polarized.

    For me, this just underscores the depravity present in higher education which now increasingly serves a radical political ideology. A new program called FemTechNet has launched a new program called "Storming Wikipedia." 15 universities are hosting this course including Yale, Brown, Pennsylvania, Bowling Green State University, California Polytechnic State University, Colby-Sawyer College, The City University of New York Graduate Center, Macaulay Honors College and Lehman College (CUNY), The New School, Ohio State University, Ontario College of Art and Design University, Pitzer College, Rutgers University and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. 300 students are registered for this online course. Sadly our institutions are looking more like reeducation camps.

  • No, but the far left needs to clean the propaganda from Wikipedia.

    Historically, the capitalist countries have supported historians and media that backed its Cold War propaganda, to the point that a lot of 'Cold War myths' still survive in today's West mentality, that makes difficult the scientific study of history.

    An example of this are the Wikipedia articles that still cite the 'Black Book of Communism' as a reliable source, when its authors made a lot of fallacies and ignored the data they wanted to.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.