Some parts of wikipedia are biased as fuck… specially the ones covering politics of populist countries. There are armies of tankies bending reality to their likes and needs.
Exactly. There was a page for the Jacobin founder that was missing a controversy over what he said about the Tsar’s children, but my edit that added it in was ultimately removed – and I totally understand why. I remember when it happened at the time, but when I looked for actual proof and sources, the only things I could find were very weak. The tweets had been deleted and only one had been dubiously archived.
Long story short, I had no evidence to back it up, even though I know I saw it. And that’s just how the cookie crumbles. If there isn’t a good source, even for something that did happen, it isn’t admissible. I can’t expect someone to take me at my word only, and I respect that Wikipedia doesn’t let that fly.
Some parts of wikipedia are biased as fuck… specially the ones covering politics of populist countries. There are armies of tankies bending reality to their likes and needs.
Then find a good source and fix them
Exactly. There was a page for the Jacobin founder that was missing a controversy over what he said about the Tsar’s children, but my edit that added it in was ultimately removed – and I totally understand why. I remember when it happened at the time, but when I looked for actual proof and sources, the only things I could find were very weak. The tweets had been deleted and only one had been dubiously archived.
Long story short, I had no evidence to back it up, even though I know I saw it. And that’s just how the cookie crumbles. If there isn’t a good source, even for something that did happen, it isn’t admissible. I can’t expect someone to take me at my word only, and I respect that Wikipedia doesn’t let that fly.
deleted by creator
Probablemente tengas razon, todos los articulos de wikipedia son escritos y revisados por pares en Washington… mala mia
deleted by creator