[afh1]

Yes, banned by the status quo for trying to disturb it. Wikipedia is nowadays highly politicized and more time and energy are spent on politics than on actually contributing with any useful knowledge. I've stopped contributing years ago after a decade of writing because of how bad things had gotten. It's a lost battle, all that remains is scorched earth filled with toxic editors trying to push their POV and banning everyone who exposes them or attempts to change things.

[martinald]

Yes agreed, for example, there was an interesting table on the starlink page I used to check every so often showing which countries had access to starlink as it was rolled out. Was interesting to see the expansion.

Of course, some editor decided it was 'marketing' for starlink so it got deleted despite loads of people protesting. It was the only source I could find easily for showing which country got starlink when.

A huge list of prose is still on the page (not marketing?) showing the updates in a very hard to read and not comprehensive way. Something is really quite wrong over there.

[ieie3366]

And the worst is the cycle:

1. There is incorrect information on wikipedia.

2. Legacy news publishes an article, using wikipedia as source (of course).

3. Now the incorrect information is essentially canonized

[JdeBP]

On the other hand, some of the best is when a hoax written by a monk in the north of England some time around 1300 is debunked by late 20th century scholarship, and eventually someone makes Wikipedia no longer re-hash a propagandist revision of the Battle of Stirling Bridge re-set in Wales that stood unchallenged for almost 7 centuries.

* https://youtube.com/v/mLdB5s7-h0w

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...

[ieie3366]

It’s a shame :( There’s a lot of blatantly incorrect information on wikipedia, and i’ve had multiple wikipedia edits reverted due to ’bad sources’