Hacker News Reader

Wikipedia is flawed, weaponized, and *intentionally* deceptive, with a myriad of articles locked down and editorialized by authors to fit their specific worldview, refusing to add information or even links to approved sources if it contradicts their narrative.

View on HN

What are some examples?

The refusal to mention "federally named Gulf of America in the US" in the lede for the Gulf of Mexico (with the Talk page growing ad infinitum with blatantly negative commentary for the president until it was finally purged and locked), the refusal to name the alleged killer Karmelo Anthony in the killing of Austin Metcalf, the attempted deletion of the article for the killing of Iryna Zarutska, overemphasis on Charlie Kirk as "far-right" and a "conspiracy theorist", keeping the title "GamerGate (harassment campaign)" and purposely refusing any mention for what triggered it and motivations involved, instead hyperfocusing on victimizing journalists involved, etc.

Another interesting comparison is the Wikipedia and Grokipedia pages for Imane Khelif. The former intentionally omits sources that don't fit the controlling editors' worldview, as the Talk page shows. Whereas the latter is a lot more balanced and discusses the controversy, with a full range of sources, rather than picking a side.

> What are some examples?

"Weaponizing Wikipedia Against Israel" https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/

Using that site as evidence is about as credible as linking to a Ben Shapiro vlog

Reply on news.ycombinator.com