Just what a reporter using Wikipedia needs. A celebrity to tell them https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mFcJVUZNRDA

I learned the hard way. My caffeine consumption became so bad that I needed to go to a hospital in the middle of the night. Then in 2014 I drank tea that contained too much sodium, causing me the same problems. I ran into a walk-in clinic (bad idea) and bad stuff happened to me there. Some bad thing...

https://theface.com/life/inside-the-wor ... ket-newtab

“You don’t get glory. You don’t get recognition beyond a small community of media editors. You certainly don’t get money”

I got an email on the Wikimedia Foundation 2022 Board of Trustees elections.

I'm eligible to vote. Who should i vote for?

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/03/17/s ... iGD_Tk4fBs

Anyone went onto this?

wexter wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 17, 2022 12:38 pm

"Ack! Thppt!"

Right on about Encyclopedia Britannica https://essaysanytime.com/blog/encyclop ... ble-source

It seems to me that those challenging the Discovery Institute are devout atheists rather than people of objectivity.

And the Wikipedia citations offer no demonstrative arguments. That's my issue with the content.

Saved to my watch later list

The only thing wrong "here" is you - and that is only because you are looking for others to support your agenda driven conclusion. The site is called "Wikipedia Sucks" not "Darwin Sucks" but it's possible that Darwin sucked-off tons of sailors during his lonely trip to the Galapagos. [/b] On the Be...

The same is true for Britannica. No real credibility.

It only publishes what it's writers & editors think is "correct" when most of it is nonsense.