Information is information. Information is not people. Wikis should not remove content just because of who wrote it.

[oranges33]

I've noticed both RationalWiki and Wikipedia (and almost every third part wiki) have a bad habit of patrolling edits solely based on who wrote it, rather than if it meets wiki standards. Regardless of whether the user is banned already or not.

The worst example is when they spend years trying to keep content off just because of petty dislike of the editor. But then they allow the exact same stuff to be let back on if it was written by someone they don't have an issue with.

I operate a few wikis myself. I do not care who writes the content as long as the content is good. If it was Hitler or Stalin or any monster writing it and it was accurate and sourced properly, it would stay. If the content is good they stay, if it's not they go. But if they get better, they can come back.

[oranges33]

Removing content based on the person who wrote it only happens on *social media*

That's what *social media* sites do. Because it's people based, not information based.

If ur website is about the neutral collection of information, where you would let bots do it if they could, then it shouldn't matter if a piece of silicon authored it or whatever else.

[boredbird]

It's a funny contradiction because at the same time they allow any person no matter how obviously bonkers to edit in the first place.

[ericbarbour]

Removing content based on the person who wrote it only happens on *social media*

That is correct. Wikipedia is more like Reddit or Twitter than it is an "encyclopedia". And they will deny it LOUDLY.

I operate a few wikis myself.

Now I'm curious. Can you PM me the address for one of your wikis to examine? I won't reveal it publicly if desired.

[ericbarbour]

It's a funny contradiction because at the same time they allow any person no matter how obviously bonkers to edit in the first place.

Lots of arbitrators have been bonkers. A current example:
viewtopic.php?p=23237#p23237