0
21

[–] EIMR 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

This was quite obvious. It is known that Wikipedia is not to be trusted in regards to anything remotely controversial. I remember being linked to the Gamergate page and it was chaos, I can't imagine the shithole that the global warming page must be.

0
13

[–] BaronVonMonologue 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

I looked at the GG page just today to see how bad it had gotten.

They're piling on things that had nothing to do with GG and cramming them into the article to make it worse.

Like a subsection on how the gamer identity was traditionally white males, or how sexism in games has been longstanding.

Those are separate topics, but they're being shoehorned into the GG article because the narrative needs to be fed.

0
15

[–] bildramer 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

6
-2

[–] darkshores 6 points -2 points (+4|-6) ago  (edited ago)

It's a well known fact that Feminist studies courses now offer college credit for vandalizing pages to give them a feminist bent.

Moral of the story: NEVER trust anything you can't PUBLICLY scrutinize

1
5

[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I feel like the pages most targeted for containing disinformation, however, are the ones that young, politically correct liberals are most offended by. E.g., gamergate would be a shithole, but since the majority of young, tech-savvy Wikipedia bureaucrats already support education about global warming, it'd be fairly accurate.

The most frustrating thing about Wikipedia is that it suffers from Reddit syndrome: even if you know what you're talking about, some entrenched poweruser will step in and use their power and expert knowledge of labyrinthine rules and red tape to silence you.

1
5

[–] John_Boehner 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Which is odd since it seems the pages most targeted for inserting disinformation are the ones that unemployed middle-age anti-science conservatives are most offended by. Unfortunately the trailer park activists have plenty of time to attack chemistry, physics, evolution, and the environment.

Luckily an army of volunteers have been able to minimize the damage caused by these echo-room propagandists.

7
-4

0
4

[–] rationalinquisition 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I just checked out the wiki article on Gamergate. It is so biased I wouldn't be surprised if it was a Gawker article.

0
5

[–] TheMindlessInn 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

This is even bigger problem with the social science because there are lots of SJWs and many poor studies to leave as sources.

0
5

[–] SkepticalMartian 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This isn't really news. Wikipedia in general is vulnerable to information sabotage. This is why there is a review infrastructure in place.

5
-4

0
5

[–] NeptuneRises 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Hardly just politically controversial science topics..

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Well true, but those are the ones this study was about.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That's frighteningly accurate. Also stuff that gets blogged about.

0
0

[–] LeNombredOr 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I posted about the Flower of Life in censorship not long ago.

0
0

[–] Sciencegirl 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's Wikipedia, anyone can alter the information on the page. It's not like we should be getting all of our information from just wikipedia. I don't feel like this should be news to anyone.