I wrote in 2019 how I got banned from editing Wikipedia even though I did not break any of their rules, and only and solely because they didn't like me pointing out their political bias. That blog post has full details of how this bias manifests.
This is, of course, not an isolated case. The amount of people that the mob that administers Wikipedia is huge.
Recently, however, they banned a rather high-profile person, and for the exact same reason: He wanted Wikipedia to be, once again, more politically neutral, like it was in the beginning.
And who was this person who got banned? Larry Sanger, one of the co-founders of Wikipedia.
That's right, a co-founder was banned from his own platform, for the huge sin that he wanted Wikipedia to become politically neutral.
According to my experience, such bans are rarely if ever done by wide consensus among the administrators (very much unlike they always claim). Instead, there's plenty of evidence, and my case is an example of that (but it's not the only one I have seen) where it's one individual admin who goes and bans someone, often as a knee-jerk reaction to something, and then the rest of the admins just go along. They very rarely if even step on each others' toes, and stand behind whatever decision one of them makes, no matter how arbitrary and without previous consensus, and no matter how contrived the reasons may be (and even if the admin in question doesn't give any rational reason at all.)
It's funny, and scary, how this supposedly "open" encyclopedia, free to be edited by anybody, is so utterly tightly controlled by a small close-nit mob of far-leftist activists who maintain power by quickly banning anybody who shows even the tiniest amount of dissent and criticism of their political bias and activism. Essentially, they managed to gain control of the platform, and are ensuring they keep in control by quickly kicking out anybody who would threaten that control.
And the scary thing is that there's nothing that can be done about it. Wikipedia, as they themselves put it, has no central authority, no board of directors, no "owners", who could veto the decisions of the administrators. There is no "boss" who could just kick them all out. Nothing. There's nobody to complain to other than the very administrators who have seized total control over the platform.
And the mob that controls the platform is, obviously, 100% anonymous, and quite deliberately so. Which means they cannot be held accountable no matter what they do. If they decide to publish political propaganda full of lies in some article, there's nothing stopping them. Any editor who tries to remove the propaganda will get quickly banned. There's nothing anybody can do about it.
As we have seen, not even a co-founder of the entire platform can do anything about it. He has seen his own platform hijacked and stolen from him, and himself banned from it.
Comments
Post a Comment