Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wikipedia/Problems"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Added Talk template)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
''It is WikiSpook's contention that, to the extent that a particular subject is judged threatening to established power centres and widespread acceptance of their official narrative of events, the reliability and ultimate accuracy of Wikipedia articles touching on it is likely to be compromised. At the extremes of power and perceived threat, Wikipedia's 'Neutral-Point-of-View' principle pretty much guarantees that the compromise will be fundamental. See WikiSpooks Editorial Policy for a fuller discussion.''
+
{{talk}}
 +
''It is WikiSpook's contention that, to the extent that a particular subject is judged threatening to established power centres and widespread acceptance of their official narrative of events, the reliability and ultimate accuracy of Wikipedia articles touching on it is likely to be compromised. At the extremes of power and perceived threat, Wikipedia's 'Neutral-Point-of-View' principle pretty much guarantees that the compromise will be fundamental. See Wikispooks Editorial Policy for a fuller discussion.''
  
 
I have a problem with this statement.
 
I have a problem with this statement.
Line 6: Line 7:
  
 
However, the MSM (except Rupert Murdoch, who is seeking a monopoly within China) and the Wonkypedia do a middling fair job of exposing this massacre.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989] The problem to be fought may indeed be "established power centres" but such distorters are only a problem when they're carrying out fraud. Which is not all the time. [[User:Toolbox|Toolbox]] 18:32, 3 September 2011 (IST)
 
However, the MSM (except Rupert Murdoch, who is seeking a monopoly within China) and the Wonkypedia do a middling fair job of exposing this massacre.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989] The problem to be fought may indeed be "established power centres" but such distorters are only a problem when they're carrying out fraud. Which is not all the time. [[User:Toolbox|Toolbox]] 18:32, 3 September 2011 (IST)
 
== Rename suggestion? ==
 
 
Logically, this might be better off at "Wikipedia/Problems"? [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 07:13, 21 September 2014 (IST)
 
:OK by me. Probably need to leave a redirect though. Also, I'll leave it to you because there is also the issue of its appearance on various footers, which arguably provide it with considerable exposure - and the question of priorities if that involves work --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 07:59, 21 September 2014 (IST)
 

Latest revision as of 17:24, 14 October 2018

It is WikiSpook's contention that, to the extent that a particular subject is judged threatening to established power centres and widespread acceptance of their official narrative of events, the reliability and ultimate accuracy of Wikipedia articles touching on it is likely to be compromised. At the extremes of power and perceived threat, Wikipedia's 'Neutral-Point-of-View' principle pretty much guarantees that the compromise will be fundamental. See Wikispooks Editorial Policy for a fuller discussion.

I have a problem with this statement.

For instance, the truth about the massacre in Tiananmen Square is being suppressed by an entity currently spending (via internet censorshp) many, many $millions to defend it's position, and prepared to spend $billions to stop the guilty parties being brought to book.

However, the MSM (except Rupert Murdoch, who is seeking a monopoly within China) and the Wonkypedia do a middling fair job of exposing this massacre.[1] The problem to be fought may indeed be "established power centres" but such distorters are only a problem when they're carrying out fraud. Which is not all the time. Toolbox 18:32, 3 September 2011 (IST)