"Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy!"
My profile
|
Not a trigger warning: This page can almost be triggering.
"WeLcOmE To wIkIpEdIa, ThE FrEe eNcYcLoPeDiA ThAt aNyOnE CaN EdIt."
This is completely true except that they want money and not anyone can edit.
I'm not even allowed to edit the article I originally wrote and created, but "anyone can edit"!
Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, has noted how Wikipedia is rank with bias. He said, " We don’t really know who edits Wikipedia or really calls the shots. There are paid professionals who have mastered the Wikipedia game. If you don’t play well with them, you’ll be banned quickly."
If I were you, I would not donate money to a biased company floating in money from left-wing operatives [1], such as Google. A company with financial backing of the most powerful corporation in the world wants to take money from people like you.
Compare the pages for Stacey Abrams and Donald Trump. For Trump, it says all over the place how everything he says is false. For Abrams, who is an election denier that made claims of election fraud that there is no evidence for, they just say it is "unable to be determined" whether is is true or not. If it were Trump, they would just say it was a false claim. The only place the word "false" appears in her article her saying something that a Republican did is false.
The real rules of Wikipedia:
My page was nominated for deletion in December 2021. I never knew Wikipedia user pages could get nominated for deletion on Wikipedia! That is really something, especially considering there were no personal attacks of any kind. As some in the deletion discussion pointed out, this proves my point that some on Wikipedia love censorship. Ultimately, the page was not deleted as more people said it should not be deleted. Another user said that saying Wikipedia was biased is "old," but of course, that does not make it untrue. Some also seemed to imply that Larry Sanger should not be taken seriously because he departed on bad terms, but that is also illogical. Some were definitely correct about how any publicity is good publicity. No one attempted to refute anything with legitimate argument. Anyway, I love Wikipedia. Did you see how many userboxes I have?
"Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy!"
My profile
|
Not a trigger warning: This page can almost be triggering.
"WeLcOmE To wIkIpEdIa, ThE FrEe eNcYcLoPeDiA ThAt aNyOnE CaN EdIt."
This is completely true except that they want money and not anyone can edit.
I'm not even allowed to edit the article I originally wrote and created, but "anyone can edit"!
Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, has noted how Wikipedia is rank with bias. He said, " We don’t really know who edits Wikipedia or really calls the shots. There are paid professionals who have mastered the Wikipedia game. If you don’t play well with them, you’ll be banned quickly."
If I were you, I would not donate money to a biased company floating in money from left-wing operatives [1], such as Google. A company with financial backing of the most powerful corporation in the world wants to take money from people like you.
Compare the pages for Stacey Abrams and Donald Trump. For Trump, it says all over the place how everything he says is false. For Abrams, who is an election denier that made claims of election fraud that there is no evidence for, they just say it is "unable to be determined" whether is is true or not. If it were Trump, they would just say it was a false claim. The only place the word "false" appears in her article her saying something that a Republican did is false.
The real rules of Wikipedia:
My page was nominated for deletion in December 2021. I never knew Wikipedia user pages could get nominated for deletion on Wikipedia! That is really something, especially considering there were no personal attacks of any kind. As some in the deletion discussion pointed out, this proves my point that some on Wikipedia love censorship. Ultimately, the page was not deleted as more people said it should not be deleted. Another user said that saying Wikipedia was biased is "old," but of course, that does not make it untrue. Some also seemed to imply that Larry Sanger should not be taken seriously because he departed on bad terms, but that is also illogical. Some were definitely correct about how any publicity is good publicity. No one attempted to refute anything with legitimate argument. Anyway, I love Wikipedia. Did you see how many userboxes I have?