viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2512
Evidently a Musk amplified edit war with tens of thousands of edits and deletions.
Musk sent a nasty tweet in the direction of Jimbo
"Wikipedia is losing its objectivity @jimmy_wales," tweeted Musk
Perhaps someone needs to educate Musk because his tweet is delusional, Wikipedia hosted porn at one point (bomis) but never had objectivity.
As to Musk “A man with priorities so far out of whack doesn’t deserve such a fine automobile.” Ferris Bueller
Musk Amplified tweeting
https://nypost.com/2022/07/29/elon-musk ... sion-page/
What is a recession? Wikipedia can't decide
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/29/11145999 ... sion-edits
Elon Musk Takes on a Beleaguered Icon
Wikipedia is the subject of much criticism following a controversial change.
https://www.thestreet.com/technology/el ... dia-debate
Down with new users;
https://fortune.com/2022/07/29/wikipedi ... new-users/
Wikipedia Attempts To Change The Definition Of ‘Recession’ 41 Times
https://dailycaller.com/2022/07/28/wiki ... recession/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recession
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beland#About_me
There is even a FAQ to new users by Berland
I read online that Wikipedia changed the definition of a recession.
Okay, so what, someone tried to remove it?
And now it's locked?
What's the deal with there being a million edits on this page in one day?
How do I see what edits have been made to an article?
Why are there all these administrators saying weird stuff here?
Why is Wikipedia paying you to do this stuff?
Okay, well, I have some stuff I want to say.
IMHO populism and pander, by the left and the right alike, does not end well.
1) Wikipedia is getting tons of bad press 2) Google might be skull raped in discovery
Court Rejects Google’s Attempt to Dismiss Rumble’s Antitrust Lawsuit, Ensuring Vast Discovery
https://scheerpost.com/2022/07/30/court ... discovery/
And evidently Wikipedia might be addling and confusing the wheels of justice
https://news.mit.edu/2022/study-finds-w ... avior-0727
Mixed appraisals of one of the internet’s major resources, Wikipedia, are reflected in the slightly dystopian article “List of Wikipedia Scandals.” Yet billions of users routinely flock to the online, anonymously editable, encyclopedic knowledge bank for just about everything. How this unauthoritative source influences our discourse and decisions is hard to reliably trace. But a new study attempts to measure how knowledge gleaned from Wikipedia may play out in one specific realm: the courts.
A team of researchers led by Neil Thompson, a research scientist at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), recently came up with a friendly experiment: creating new legal Wikipedia articles to examine how they affect the legal decisions of judges. They set off by developing over 150 new Wikipedia articles on Irish Supreme Court decisions, written by law students. Half of these were randomly chosen to be uploaded online, where they could be used by judges, clerks, lawyers, and so on — the “treatment” group. The other half were kept offline, and this second group of cases provided the counterfactual basis of what would happen to a case absent a Wikipedia article about it (the “control”). They then looked at two measures: whether the cases were more likely to be cited as precedents by subsequent judicial decisions, and whether the argumentation in court judgments echoed the linguistic content of the new Wikipedia pages.