- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I stopped using Wikipedia in 2008 when I became aware that passages in it were getting re-written with less than optimal information. Of course I still use it for trivia – e.g. the proper name for a country or who won the World Cup in some year – but for anything controversial I go elsewhere.
Every year or so since 2008 I will use it to examine an issue I know a lot about, just to check its reliability, and every time I do, I find it wanting.
There is a commentator here who posts occasionally called “Neil”. I clicked on his name and was taken to his page on Wikipedia. It was about Julian Assange’s situation and the incredible detail that Neil had assembled made me feel humbled by his efforts – it seemed the height of integrity and a wide-ranging description of Mr Assange’s crucifixion by the minions of the MIC.
A few weeks ago I heard the Prime Minister of Israel say that Wikipedia is part of the battlespace and this politician claimed to be assigning more resources to make sure Israel won the battle for Wikipedia and that its pages would contain the Zionist version history and no other.
I feel if a source is so prone to change, its utility approaches zero. On the other hand I know Wikipedia is not all dross because I looked at Neil’s page.
Any thoughts on how this situation might play out would be appreciated …
