I wrote in February last year how the Wikipedia article on Gamergate is really shameful biased unilateral propaganda.
Since the social justice warriors just can't get over it, the article has been actively edited since, and has become even worse. Even the summary at the beginning of the article has become longer, and a stronger tirade campaign against the movement. "Assault" and "murder" are some of the new, stronger words introduced since the last time I looked at it.
I mentioned in that previous blog post how the word "threat" appeared 31 times, and the word "harassment" appeared 55 times in the article. Those numbers have now increased to 54 and an astonishing 95 times. It now even appears in two section titles.
I would be almost ready to bet that no single noun or verb in the English language appears that many times in any article in the entirety of Wikipedia.
It's quite clear that this Wikipedia article is pure full-on unilateral well-poisoning propaganda. It spends an astonishing amount of text space to go on and on and on attacking the movement, listing every single tiny allegation and event against the movement. It seems that the social justice warriors just can't get enough, are obsessed, and have a morbid urge to keep making the article a stronger and stronger attack against the movement. I'm sure that the word "harassment" will break the 100 mark quite soon, with "threat" not being far behind. And that's just for those two words.
With this article, Wikipedia has reached Conservapedia levels of propaganda. (Conservapedia is quite infamous for its articles that are basically nothing more than hugely extensive lists of tiny insignificant "facts" against whatever thing the author is attacking, often going for pages and pages, with no real content or discussion.)
Needless to say, both the article itself, and its talk page, are still under the tightest possible lock available at Wikipedia, with sanctions imposed on any dissenter who may still have editing rights on either one. Discussion and disagreement is absolutely not tolerated.
There is a FAQ in the talk page of the article. The answers are an absolute charade.
Since the social justice warriors just can't get over it, the article has been actively edited since, and has become even worse. Even the summary at the beginning of the article has become longer, and a stronger tirade campaign against the movement. "Assault" and "murder" are some of the new, stronger words introduced since the last time I looked at it.
I mentioned in that previous blog post how the word "threat" appeared 31 times, and the word "harassment" appeared 55 times in the article. Those numbers have now increased to 54 and an astonishing 95 times. It now even appears in two section titles.
I would be almost ready to bet that no single noun or verb in the English language appears that many times in any article in the entirety of Wikipedia.
It's quite clear that this Wikipedia article is pure full-on unilateral well-poisoning propaganda. It spends an astonishing amount of text space to go on and on and on attacking the movement, listing every single tiny allegation and event against the movement. It seems that the social justice warriors just can't get enough, are obsessed, and have a morbid urge to keep making the article a stronger and stronger attack against the movement. I'm sure that the word "harassment" will break the 100 mark quite soon, with "threat" not being far behind. And that's just for those two words.
With this article, Wikipedia has reached Conservapedia levels of propaganda. (Conservapedia is quite infamous for its articles that are basically nothing more than hugely extensive lists of tiny insignificant "facts" against whatever thing the author is attacking, often going for pages and pages, with no real content or discussion.)
Needless to say, both the article itself, and its talk page, are still under the tightest possible lock available at Wikipedia, with sanctions imposed on any dissenter who may still have editing rights on either one. Discussion and disagreement is absolutely not tolerated.
There is a FAQ in the talk page of the article. The answers are an absolute charade.
Comments
Post a Comment