Alpha3031

Do you consider The Intercept pro-war? Also, while most editors naturally reach for anglophone sources first, it's not as if sources in other languages are automatically rejected, even if every US media source is bloodthirsty. Unfortunately, it's not as if the project can get its own reporters on the ground, nor does it really want to.

The Conversation (the news outlet) also shows that scientists are interested in informing the public of their work. Communication is something of a different area of expertise to actually doing science though.

The closest thing I can think of would be pending changes protection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Pe...) which is not very frequently applied, but plausible for lightly edited articles. Creation of new articles has been restricted to accounts that have made a small number of edits since about 2011.

> The book is way broader than Wiki, basically it wants "epistemological anarchy". Let scientists do their thing regardless of what the current view on it is. Only by pushing do we discover new things.

People here may be familiar with the exploration–exploitation tradeoff (which, by the way, has a Wikipedia article that could use some significant expansion by some people who are familiar). It is rightly pointed out here that there are areas where it is appropriate for there to be less discovery and greater focus on exploiting or validating existing knowledge, and of course, vice versa. One may propose also the possibility that there be multiple points on the spectrum that one could take even in the same field, for example, preliminary results may be shared as preprints before peer-review, yet even after review, post-publication review and replication are essential for robustness.

Still, it may seem odd that exploration, original research, is expressly prohibited on Wikipedia. But should we be without any such restriction, Wikipedia is written by Randy in Boise.

As a matter of (English) Wikipedia policy the inclusion of personal details ("such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses") should not be supported by only public records. Proper names for those primarily known under an alias are not explicitly covered under this section, but there would be a reasonable case for exclusion.

For the section in question, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY

Fox News isn't banned, unlike the Daily Mail. When it is on the record that everyone from the hosts up to network executives were aware and continued to report falsehoods, one might think the lady doth protest too much.

Have you considered donating an hour or so of your time every month instead? This could be instead of or in addition to a monetary donation.