Not really in practice no, the culture is very insular with a small number of admins and editors controlling the majority of articles (the ability to lock articles was made expressly for this purpose). That's before getting into some of the more notorious editor accounts like Philip_Cross, an account that never sleeps and consistently edits articles relating to western foreign policy targets, players in the military industrial complex, human rights industry and independent journalists critical of establishment narratives. Wikipedias founder is also a randian ideologue, who seems to offer his site up to the security state and has board members who served on the atlantic council. Finally wikipedia regularly breaks its own rules about transparency, using them to silence alternative media voices on the left, while never critiquing establisment media and often citing straight up propaganda as fact.
I have completely dropped them as sources for any political conflicts to the point where I can't even use them as background information.
Yes, but there are Mods who ultimately have the last say. The articles, especially controversial ones, usually end up edited and redacted by these guys who base off their stuff on USA propaganda and shitty sources (they are on the imperial core, after all), and you can get banned or stop being able to edit if you push on. Of course, not all articles are like that and it's an ongoing battle. I think there was a good documentary on this but I can't seem to find it. There's also the fact that—and here I can only speak for Spanish wikipedia—English sources and the English articles end up translated (and badly) to other languages, and they also carry the Western-English point of view with them.
You technically can and you would probably have no issues if it was a really obscure topic, but even a minor change to an article about some semi-relevant topic can cause a shitstorm and drama.
Nope, that's a terrible terrible idea. Wikipedia mods / powerusers are way more online than even reddit mods / powerusers. And they actually have more power. If you try to brigade with a specific agenda (even if that agenda is literally just "i want this page to reflect reality") everything you do will be pretty much immediately undone, the page will be locked so no one can edit it, and everyone involved will get ip banned from the site
idgi cant everyone edit it?
Not really in practice no, the culture is very insular with a small number of admins and editors controlling the majority of articles (the ability to lock articles was made expressly for this purpose). That's before getting into some of the more notorious editor accounts like Philip_Cross, an account that never sleeps and consistently edits articles relating to western foreign policy targets, players in the military industrial complex, human rights industry and independent journalists critical of establishment narratives. Wikipedias founder is also a randian ideologue, who seems to offer his site up to the security state and has board members who served on the atlantic council. Finally wikipedia regularly breaks its own rules about transparency, using them to silence alternative media voices on the left, while never critiquing establisment media and often citing straight up propaganda as fact.
I have completely dropped them as sources for any political conflicts to the point where I can't even use them as background information.
Yes, but there are Mods who ultimately have the last say. The articles, especially controversial ones, usually end up edited and redacted by these guys who base off their stuff on USA propaganda and shitty sources (they are on the imperial core, after all), and you can get banned or stop being able to edit if you push on. Of course, not all articles are like that and it's an ongoing battle. I think there was a good documentary on this but I can't seem to find it. There's also the fact that—and here I can only speak for Spanish wikipedia—English sources and the English articles end up translated (and badly) to other languages, and they also carry the Western-English point of view with them.
deleted by creator
so u cant just go right now and edit something to fix it?
You technically can and you would probably have no issues if it was a really obscure topic, but even a minor change to an article about some semi-relevant topic can cause a shitstorm and drama.
I think Chapo brigades would be better suited again Wikipedia than Reddit. Just drown them in edits.
Nope, that's a terrible terrible idea. Wikipedia mods / powerusers are way more online than even reddit mods / powerusers. And they actually have more power. If you try to brigade with a specific agenda (even if that agenda is literally just "i want this page to reflect reality") everything you do will be pretty much immediately undone, the page will be locked so no one can edit it, and everyone involved will get ip banned from the site
Definitely doesn't sound like a system that could be absused. (As in, on the mod side)
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod