Once when one of my Covid posts was removed from FB (for what turned out to be a phrase that had zero to do with the subject of the article) I took the time to follow the bouncing ball to see who could be a Wikipedia writer. It turns out ANYONE can submit writings to be posted on Wikipedia without them even being, you know, “fact checked”!
Once when one of my Covid posts was removed from FB (for what turned out to be a phrase that had zero to do with the subject of the article) I took the time to follow the bouncing ball to see who could be a Wikipedia writer. It turns out ANYONE can submit writings to be posted on Wikipedia without them even being, you know, “fact checked”!
But WHO ARE THE OVERLORDS deciding that only SOME "anyones" are legit? It can't be a person making the reversions; my TED talk has 7M views, but when I changed it to that, it automatically bounced back to 4. Like instantly. That's not controversial or debatable; it's a verifiable fact. It's bad enough they can label and name-call with impunity, but at LEAST get your numbers right!
Donna O— Exactly. It's a wiki. Anyone can get in there are start mucking around. That has its advantages, lots of good info that might otherwise never appear, but plenty of junk and crap. But it isn't all so simple— there's much more to say about it, and pointedly, there's some gaming going on at the behest of the Deep State (and others). That's why people such as Jenna are going to find smears on their wikipedia page and they can't do anything about it. So when someone tells me, "wikipedia says—" I just think, well, that person might just as well have said, "random mysterious person says—"
Watching the US is like watching a surreal absurdist movie. It's got to the point that if I read Jenna without having heard the latest piece of news, I can't tell what is satire and what is actual stuff that has happened - it ALL sounds like surely-must-be-satire!!
Once when one of my Covid posts was removed from FB (for what turned out to be a phrase that had zero to do with the subject of the article) I took the time to follow the bouncing ball to see who could be a Wikipedia writer. It turns out ANYONE can submit writings to be posted on Wikipedia without them even being, you know, “fact checked”!
But WHO ARE THE OVERLORDS deciding that only SOME "anyones" are legit? It can't be a person making the reversions; my TED talk has 7M views, but when I changed it to that, it automatically bounced back to 4. Like instantly. That's not controversial or debatable; it's a verifiable fact. It's bad enough they can label and name-call with impunity, but at LEAST get your numbers right!
Donna O— Exactly. It's a wiki. Anyone can get in there are start mucking around. That has its advantages, lots of good info that might otherwise never appear, but plenty of junk and crap. But it isn't all so simple— there's much more to say about it, and pointedly, there's some gaming going on at the behest of the Deep State (and others). That's why people such as Jenna are going to find smears on their wikipedia page and they can't do anything about it. So when someone tells me, "wikipedia says—" I just think, well, that person might just as well have said, "random mysterious person says—"
Watching the US is like watching a surreal absurdist movie. It's got to the point that if I read Jenna without having heard the latest piece of news, I can't tell what is satire and what is actual stuff that has happened - it ALL sounds like surely-must-be-satire!!
Oh, dear that's not good (but it IS hilarious, if I do say so). :)