I have a real problem with people like this. Setting themselves up as expert critics of Wikipedia, media mouthpieces and activist rabble rousers, when it is not every hard to find evidence they are anything but familiar with even the very basics of the thing they are seeking to critique. Or worse, their criticism is deliberately presented in a false and misleading fashion, because telling the truth would undermine their goals.
Here is a representative Tweet......
The first sentence is of course a total lie, as anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia would have spotted. The rest is questionable, there are countless examples of people, ironically often those of an activist bent, who are not in any way constrained from trollish tendencies by virtue of being fully identifiable."Anyone can flag a Wikipedia page for any reason. They don’t need to reveal their identity or know anything about the content of the page they flag. The anonymity fuels trollish impulses."
Great piece from @StAndrewslynx on @Wikipedia's notability problem
Zaringhalam's one and only contribution to a Wikipedia talk page for example......
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =892200629
....kicks off with "I'm not sure that you understand how science works.", which unsurprisingly drew the response "I do not appreciate your extremely condescending opening sentence." The rest of the post was unimpressive, to say the least.