I hate to lose faith, but given the war conservatives so far have handled protecting free speech and cancel culture in this administration, I’m not hopeful that they truly want to bring objectivity to Wikipedia.
I think it should be possible to disagree with some of Wikipedia's editorial outcomes, processes, aspects of this administration or any other politician. We shouldn't dismiss the possibility that Wikipedia has problems as well as partisan politics. We definitely shouldn't dismiss that combination with even more partisan generalization.
You're allowed to disagree, if you're specific. The parent comment cited two examples of the current admin fumbling online decorum. Do you have any examples of damages from Wikipedia's misconduct?
I hate to lose faith, but given the war conservatives so far have handled protecting free speech and cancel culture in this administration, I’m not hopeful that they truly want to bring objectivity to Wikipedia.
I think it should be possible to disagree with some of Wikipedia's editorial outcomes, processes, aspects of this administration or any other politician. We shouldn't dismiss the possibility that Wikipedia has problems as well as partisan politics. We definitely shouldn't dismiss that combination with even more partisan generalization.
You're allowed to disagree, if you're specific. The parent comment cited two examples of the current admin fumbling online decorum. Do you have any examples of damages from Wikipedia's misconduct?
I mean it's very lopsided in the sources it accepts.
Huffing Post and Jezebel are acceptable sources?!?