Comments 1 - 13 of 13 Search these comments
Why does this article internalize Trump's narcissism and self-aggrandizement?
"an agenda to keep Trump's zinc aspect from consideration"
I wrote donate@wikimedia.org and told them why I will never donate: their extreme leftist bias.
Same thing applies to your emails sent to donate@wikipedia.org . Makes ya feel good, but in the end it is just another form of masturbation.
I wrote donate@wikimedia.org and told them why I will never donate: their extreme leftist bias.
Patrick saysI wrote donate@wikimedia.org and told them why I will never donate: their extreme leftist bias.
patrick did you get a reply mentioning how they banned 381 linked accounts that were orchestrating a paid editing scheme in 2015?
On 17/September/2020 07:24, donate@wikimedia.org wrote:
> The idea of a neutral point of view is one of our core principles.
No!
Wrong!
Take a look at any political article it will be:
1. obviously skewed far left
2. locked to prevent public input
Do you want examples?
Patrick
The academics have analyzed disputes between Wikipedia contributors in several politically charged areas and found that in every case the administrators have more often ruled in favor of left-wing editors than right-wing ones. In the case of disagreements between pro- and anti-Trump contributors the powers that be found in favor of the latter by a ratio of six to one. So much for the encyclopedia’s ‘neutral point of view’.
None of this would matter if Wikipedia wasn’t such an authoritative source. It’s precisely for that reason that it’s been captured by the woke left. Restoring any kind of balance is probably too much to hope for, but we should do what we can to disabuse people of the idea that it’s impartial.
Fortunately, there are still sane people objecting to the ridiculous levels of slant and omission in the Wikipedia, on the "talk" page for the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydroxychloroquine
Of course arguing with those suffering from TDS does nothing except make them more determined than ever to distort or omit the truth.
Of course no one should ever donate to Wikipedia again, but that hardly matters because they are now awash in cash from anonymous sources who approve of their departure from a universally editable and neutral encyclopedia.