|
|
|
|
|
|
by qnleigh
630 days ago
|
|
|
Funny you mention that. I've been experimenting with reading only Wikipedia as my source for news. I agree it seems to be an excellent source. What I can't figure out is how it seems to still be so neutral, given that it's completely open for anyone to edit. Seems like it would be quite cheap for an organization to edit things to their liking. Is it simply that most people don't get their news from Wikipedia, and so it's not a primary target for manipulation? Is it already awash in self-serving content and I just haven't noticed? |
|
|
The short version is that you can make Wikipedia report the way you want, but you need to be strategic about it. Wikipedia reports information from "reliable sources", so instead of editing the information directly, you need to insist that the sources that agree with you are reliable and the sources that don't agree with you are unreliable. If you succeed at this, then getting the information you want into Wikipedia is just straightforward following of Wikipedia's written policy.