User talk:Btphelps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Home | Talk | About me | Contributions | Images | Notebook | Subpages | Todo | Toolbox | Sandbox | Userboxes |
Why Wikipedia is a failure[edit]
From the April 18, 2024, NY Post'°, a generally unreliable source, of course:
Katherine Maher, [formerly the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation and now] the newly installed chief executive of National Public Radio [the well known bastion of balanced fair reporting representative of all Americans *cough cough*], said she sought to crack down on the “free and open” ethos at her previous job running Wikipedia because it was based on a “white male Westernized construct” that led to “exclusion of communities and languages.”...
In an interview that was cited by Christopher Rufo, Maher said that the idea of “free and open” was “recapitulating many of the same power structures and dynamics that existed offline prior to the advent of the internet.”
Maher said that the “free and open” approach was problematic because it resulted in the “exclusion of communities and languages” where “the idea of a written tradition is [not] particular [to them].”...
Larry Sanger, who co-founded Wikipedia alongside Jimmy Wales in 2001, has said that the site can no longer be trusted because it has been taken over by left-wing “volunteers” who cut out news that doesn’t fit their agenda...
In [a] video, Maher said Wikipedia under her leadership “took a very active approach to disinformation and misinformation” in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.
She said that Wikipedia set up “sort of a clearinghouse of information” to deal with election- and pandemic-related content so that editors of the site could cooperate with the government to “identify threats.
Wokist CEO Katherine Maher, while head of WP, “took a very active approach to disinformation,” coordinated censorship “through conversations with government,” and suppressed dissenting opinions related to the pandemic and the 2020 election.
Maher also said that she viewed the First Amendment as “the number one challenge” because speech protections make it “tricky” to suppress “bad information” and the “influence peddlers who have made a real market economy around it."
A certain person with a tiny weenie trying to feel important by trashing other people's contributions including proposed deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philmont Leadership Challenge. It doesn't matter that the content and articles were contributed in good faith, sustained by the edits of many other WP editors, and have been around for a goodly period of time.
WP long ago relegated any conservative reliable source to the toilet. Under the mighty sledgehammer of WP rules that have been crafted by ignorant meatheads to kill anything conservative, patriotic, and American, certain WP cretins have taken it upon themselves to target specific contributors. While piously applying the rules, they feel considerable Schadenfreude and morally superior. Their fervent wish under their foul tongues is to drive us away so they can create a citadel to all that they think is right, or should I say, left. Like the Dodo Bird, WP is headed for extinction due to the leftist stooges running the circus. It is losing respectability and credibility. It doesn't matter that certain articles might have value. It was a good run, and wish it were not true.
Referring to the editor with a tiny weenie, I quote a retired editor who I much respected:
"I loathe busybodies with too much time on their hands, who spend more time being critical of the postings of others than they do posting their own knowledge. I am the natural enemy of the protocol deletionist; I hate those who intentionally won't seek a creative way to save something potentially useful. If you've been here long enough, you will be involved in deletion discussions. I have had to nominate several, but it is nothing to cheer about; no matter how trivial it may seem to you, it mattered enough to some volunteer editor. Those who take joy in deleting the work of others are psychopaths. and those who delete factual or useful contributions to an article, that are not vandalism, because it does not fit their own narrow view of what the article should be. If someone puts something on there that might not belong where it is, find a home for it, don't delete it outright. :)"
Note that this is personal commentary and not addressed to anyone in particular. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 02:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: May 2024[edit]
Other ways to participate: |
Nomination of Philmont Leadership Challenge for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philmont Leadership Challenge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.