Is Wikipedia basically Goebbels, but with a right on mission statement?


#1

I’m not a Wikipedia expert but when I looked at the entry for the controversial film Cuties, it’s currently completely sanitized of any of the controversy about Netflix. The edit history shows a warfare going on, particularly about any assertion that challenges permissiveness.

I’ve noticed this a lot more in the last year on a huge range of subjects.

It used to be my go-to source but now you have to do a sort of textual analysis to figure out what they’re omitting.


#2

Who is Philip Cross? What we know about the mysterious Wikipedia editor /

Wikipedia disappears article on “Philip Cross” & life-bans author

Just think how unlikely it would be that something like this could exist indefinitely without being subverted to some set of special interests.


#3

There are two laws covering this.

Firstly:
Betteridge’s law of headlines is an adage that states: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”

Furthermore,
Godwin’s Law is an internet adage that is derived from one of the earliest bits of Usenet wisdoms, which posits that “if you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion thread, you’ve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in.”


#4

Betteridge’s law is hardly applicable in this instance.


#5

:joy: you’re such a grabbler, “I think you’ll find (as you bob your head & move the glasses up your nose) that a mass indoctrination project on social issues has no relevance to Goebbels”

In other news, there is now reference to the controversy & it quotes some actress no one knows who supports the film. The almost minute by minute sanitization of the article continues


#6

The person who seems to have the power to control the page is a “TransWoman” & approves all edits