[conz]

> Wikipedia is no bastion of free speech either.

Wikipedia shouldn't be a bastion of free speech, in the same way that a text-book shouldn't be the bastion of 'all forms of crazy and unsportable ideas'. Anything that doesn't have requisite levels of credible evidence should be removed from Wikipedia or at least appropriately marked with caveats.

If you want a bastion of free speech, consider the Internet as a whole as your only viability.

[version_five]

It's pretty clear that the grandparent comment means wikipedia doesn't support diverse views on things. Outside of the hard sciences, and even there with caveats, there are not objective truths, and the point is that wikipedia is not a place where all interpretations get the same consideration. Maybe it would be useless if it did, but it's not bias-free

[conz]

> t's pretty clear that the grandparent comment means wikipedia doesn't support diverse views on things

It is? Not any way that I read the grandparent comment. Regardless, I would dispute that, unless you're saying the people with 'diverse views' are somehow prevented from contributing to Wikipedia?[0]

> Outside of the hard sciences, and even there with caveats, there are not objective truths, and the point is that wikipedia is not a place where all interpretations get the same consideration.

I'd also dispute this. There are literally thousands of academic disciplines alone, which are incorporated into Wikipedia[1]. As long as there are citations to credible information sources[2], there's no reason not to consider them as much 'objective truths' as the citation sources themselves are are.

[0] Assuming they have requisite levels of credible evidence to back their contributions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_academic_discipline...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...

[MrMan]

hah "diverse" views

truth doesn't exist right?

[mwint]

Truth exists, but the definition of truth Twitter, etc. use has a nasty habit of becoming false later.