all 17 comments

[–]Aureus 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

/u/magnora7 should make one quick before someone more biased against SaidIt does.

[–]magnora7 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Saidit is mentioned on the wiki article for reddit I think. But the requirement to have a wiki article is to have a "significant article mention" so basically a MSM source needs to mention saidit at some point, which hasn't really happened yet, except on medium.com. We're close, but I don't think we yet quality, but maybe if someone tries again we can get one established

[–]Aureus 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But the requirement to have a wiki article is to have a "significant article mention" so basically a MSM source needs to mention saidit at some point

I feel like this cause some serious bias issues for Wikipedia...

[–]Robin 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For sure. It means that whoever controls corporate media can control wikipedia. https://www.wikispooks.com/wiki/WP/C

[–]Madhur[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks! This answers my question adequately: Wikipedia is about citations, at the end.

[–]Hellothereawesome 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's just not gonna happen for a while until another website that is more in cahoots with the government is given a shot at taking reddit's place, I think...

[–]whistlepig 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

MSM hardly qualifies as significant

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No point. It’ll get deleted for being original research. Even if it persists, the lefty shut-ins will swarm to ensure the article fits their narrative.

[–]TheAmeliaMay 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You can go ahead and write one. No one is stopping you. Might have to watch it, though, since some Redditor will probably grief the page eventually.

[–]Staf 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Absolutely nothing after all Wikipedia is the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

[–]StBlops2cel_is_Lord 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

that anyone can edit.

not true

[–]pyrit135 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Dunno. You should write one.

[–]Madhur[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I started on that idea, but...
I am barely a day old saidittor. In fact, this question is my first post here. I felt unqualified to write the article beyond one line and came here to ask this question - maybe there are others here who can do this much better than me?

Thankfully, /u/magnora7 's comment stated the big problem very clearly. We should wait.

[–]Tortoise 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because no one has made one.

[–]Robin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It doesn't much matter who makes it; if you want one, make one. Just don't be surprised if it is removed because of "non-notability". Alternatively, update this article... :-)

[–]StBlops2cel_is_Lord 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also no article about Ruqqus, very weird

[–]NorfolkTerrier 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wikipedia is biased and inconsistent, but the overall principle is that something needs to be written about by mainstream sources before it can have an article. If SaidIt has just been mentioned once or twice as one of a number of alternatives, then it would be more likely just mentioned on the Reddit article.