Fuck 'em. They're all-in on rewriting history, going so far as to consider the article about communist-caused famines for deletion.

I use it frequently and donate $30 to $50 a year. I just don’t bother to use it for anything that is controversial.

Our for profit media needs readership/viewership to sell advertising. Controversy brings in readership/viewership. So they show/print controversy.

If it isn’t controversial, then it goes in an encyclopedia.

Imagine how bad it would be if they didn't get donations and were forced to monetize the platform ala Facebook or YouTube.

I've changed my position from "maybe" to "no way".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/wo...nt-version-truth-co/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...ommunism-due-claims/

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by Batty67:
Its a mixed bag for sure. I've never donated. but thought about it. I think know it is biased and craptacular for political, social, and related issues (varies widely), but for history, science, geography, etc., it is a great resource to learn about an issue...at least superficially. And I'm a scientist. So I hit up wikipedia from time-to-time.

Thank you. I fixed it a little for myself.

I see what you did there. For typically non-social/political/religious/contentious topics, Wikipedia is a good starter resource, and I have lost oodles of time (not so much anymore) hopping around and digging into a topic.

I’ve contributed to a few firearms articles.

quote:

Originally posted by Broadside:
If it isn’t controversial, then it goes in an encyclopedia.

What happens when the encyclopedia sticks its fingers in controversies?

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
Their censorship falls largely in pro-progressive ways. Fuck ‘em.

You know it is all user "censored," right? I have contributed too, and edited articles once in a while. You can, too.

I mean, you have to be aware of that, and recognize that the truly driven are the ones making most of the changes to articles and are the ones writing them. You have too look at the sources, and determine which data is reliable.

But it isn't Wikipedia itself that writes or edits articles.

I kick them a few bucks. I use it enough to make it valuable, and they still aren't advertising.