ericbarbour wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 7:04 am
I would expect no less. An obsessively detailed article, except about the motives of the killers. (Who got what they wanted after all, and seriously, does anyone think they would care if the WP article mentions their motives or not?)
The article itself is "not encyclopedic" in any way or form.. in the old days newspaper archives would be relegated to "microfiche" in a library
-Wikipedia cannot
---have an article where Wikipedia is the rationalization for murder
---say that Brianna WU is trans, they can say that "they" are fighting against the systemic bias against women in programming. They can say that WU ran for congress, they cannot say that "they only garnered" 20K votes in a primary.
---cannot have an article about a woman school teacher that was sentenced as a sex offender and now is a porn-star-stripper
Editors care about Wikipedia content too much, too little, or not at all..
The "content engine" at Wikipedia is a ghost town relative to the body of work that has to be maintained... and there are disincentives to correct content in terms of context, weighting, truth, and even grammar (Wu).
The toxic social network people we talk about including HJ Mitchell will remain on Wikipedia as "readers/customers" replace Wikipedia by shifting their consumption to computer written content (with concentrated control).
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."