Hacker News Reader

Not gonna work. Has to be re-viewed first.

Who's got more time and capacity to play the wiki game, me or the PR firm hired to edit a politician's wiki page?

All you have to do is find a bored wikipedia nerd "editor". They will gladly take on the bureaucratic battle to get that PR firm banned from editing wikipedia content.

The people who make editing wikipedia their identity have A LOT of time on their hands, and LOVE fixing these kinds of things because it makes wikipedia better, and look better.

And A LOT of those people have ideological motivations on their own.

There is an entire industry of fact checkers and editors highlighting the side of the news their party like and hiding the opposite's viewpoint.

Wikipedia's bias is well known.

From the page on abortion: > When properly done, induced abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine.

Mind you, not too safe for the baby.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy so it's obvious that the "safest" is referring to maternal mortality.

Instead of pretending to be foolish, why not give a better example?