Wikipedia Sucks!

... On average, more than 4,000 people visit Andrew Jackson’s page a day, and more than 6,000 take a look at Thomas Jefferson’s. Wikipedia is increasingly viewed as a legitimate source of information, and it can affect legislative and judicial decisions. The latter is crucial right now, given very real attacks on Native American sovereignty in U.S. courts.

Disregard and outright contempt for Native American peoples, history, and knowledge on Wikipedia, in the courts, and in the media is not new. Erasing Native existence was common practice in 19th- and 20th-century New England newspapers, for example. And the United States and Canada have been trying to legislate Native peoples out of existence since the outset of colonization. As the historian Patrick Wolfe explained, “Settler colonialism destroys to replace,” or at

Ognistysztorm wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:33 pm

https://slate.com/technology/2023/02/wi ... alism.html

... On average, more than 4,000 people visit Andrew Jackson’s page a day, and more than 6,000 take a look at Thomas Jefferson’s. Wikipedia is increasingly viewed as a legitimate source of information, and it can affect legislative and judicial decisions. The latter is crucial right now, given very real attacks on Native American sovereignty in U.S. courts.

Disregard and outright contempt for Native American peoples, history, and knowledge on Wikipedia, in the courts, and in the media is not new. Erasing Native existence was common practice in 19th- and 20th-century New England newspapers, for example. And the United States and Canada have been trying to legislate Native peoples out of existence since the outset of colonization. As the historian Patrick Wolfe explained, “Settler colonialism destroys to replace,” or at

Bbb23sucks wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 04, 2023 5:57 pm

Already on ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ive_Tribes

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 06, 2023 10:19 pm

Three days later, the Pakistani government walked it back......probably because so many people screamed "WHY CAN'T WE LOOK UP TRIVIA ON WIKIPEDIA?!?!?"

"The "unintended consequences of this blanket ban" outweighed the "benefits.""

https://www.engadget.com/pakistan-wikip ... 26810.html

Kumioko wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:43 pm

Personally I'm pretty surprised by this article. Not because it surprises me about the content but because Slate published it. Slate usually only does puff pieces about Wikipedia. Its rare for them to do actual critical journalism when it comes to Wikipedia.

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:13 am

Bbb23sucks wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 04, 2023 5:57 pm

Already on ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ive_Tribes

Yeah, that's a doomed attempt....

Too bad the tribes can't just block WP, and get publicity for it:

https://www.engadget.com/pakistan-block ... 27009.html