Wikipedia Repeatedly Scrubs All Evidence of Jen Psaki’s Brother’s Position as Portfolio Manager at Citadel 5 TIMES IN A ROW While Twitter and Reddit Get Caught Shadow Banning All Discussion

submitted by scrubking from redpilled.ca

all 10 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

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

The leftist filth New World Order-loving comrades at Wikipedia are blithering idiots. That is worse than being a Neo-Idiot.

A Wiki listing for a Vietnam battle merely repeated the same old tired crap found across the Web. Being present in person for that battle I added 100% accurate information that made the Wiki article far more than what the various sources the Wiki article author stole from.

My content sat alongside the already-present content for a short period before being deleted. Other entries for various Vietnam-related content that I was able to add insightful content based upon either my actually using equipment or events witnessed were also deleted. Fine. This stuff happened years ago and I decided that the comrades at Wiki can play in their yard and akin to the other commenter I use Wikipedia for very basic needs and wants and otherwise avoid the loathsome place.

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

Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia. It is not a place for provable facts, nor are they interested in facts of any kind. "Information" contained there is regurgitated public school text; we all know who writes that shit.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[deleted]

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

    And early life.

    [–]IridescentAnaconda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    It's OK for math and established science.

    [–]cisheteroscumNational Justice Party 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    and established science.

    You mean established science that doesn't challenge the narrative, like race or IQ does

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

    Sure. Maybe I should have said "noncontroversial science". Let's just put it this way: if, at work, I have to look something up quickly, some established scientific factoid, then the wiki is pretty reliable for that. Even if it is a narrative that could be challenged, it probably wouldn't do me any good to try to challenge it at work. I don't generally use the wiki for anything personal, political, or spiritual unless I need a mainstream take.

    [–]Bigs 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Wiki is one of the long-marched institutions.

    [–]wristaction 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    To understand why wikipedia is the way it is, you just have to consider exactly who has time in their lives and access to research dbs. Basically everyone you edit-war with on wikipedia is an adjunct professor or a journalist.

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

    Nah, a lot of them are SJW types with an agenda. Period.

    [–]gof-urself2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxRW-duSCLA