This is only a segment of an article published by Dr. Joseph Mercola. See complete story below in link.
Wikipedia is advertised as a free encyclopedia, where information is added and edited by the public. Anyone can add to or edit any given Wikipedia page. Or so they say.
“The reality can’t be more different,” investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson says, explaining that many pages have been co-opted and are controlled by anonymous Wikipedia editors on behalf of special interests. “They forbid and reverse edits that go against their agenda,” she says. “They skew and delete information, in blatant violation of Wikipedia’s own established policies, with impunity.”
Even the smallest factual inaccuracies are impossible to correct on these agenda-driven pages. As just one example, in 2012, author Philip Roth tried to correct a factual error about the inspiration behind one of his book characters cited on a Wikipedia page. His correction was repeatedly reversed and, ultimately, he was told he was not considered a credible source!
Worse, a study1 comparing medical conditions described on Wikipedia with published research found that Wikipedia contradicted the medical literature an astounding 90 percent of the time. So, be aware — Wikipedia is NOT the place for accurate and reliable medical information.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/10/28/astroturfing-media-manipulation.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20171028Z1&et_cid=DM163336&et_rid=100467402
PulletSurprise wrote:
This is only a segment of an article published by Dr. Joseph Mercola. See complete story below in link.
Wikipedia is advertised as a free encyclopedia, where information is added and edited by the public. Anyone can add to or edit any given Wikipedia page. Or so they say.
“The reality can’t be more different,” investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson says, explaining that many pages have been co-opted and are controlled by anonymous Wikipedia editors on behalf of special interests. “They forbid and reverse edits that go against their agenda,” she says. “They skew and delete information, in blatant violation of Wikipedia’s own established policies, with impunity.”
Even the smallest factual inaccuracies are impossible to correct on these agenda-driven pages. As just one example, in 2012, author Philip Roth tried to correct a factual error about the inspiration behind one of his book characters cited on a Wikipedia page. His correction was repeatedly reversed and, ultimately, he was told he was not considered a credible source!
Worse, a study1 comparing medical conditions described on Wikipedia with published research found that Wikipedia contradicted the medical literature an astounding 90 percent of the time. So, be aware — Wikipedia is NOT the place for accurate and reliable medical information.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/10/28/astroturfing-media-manipulation.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20171028Z1&et_cid=DM163336&et_rid=100467402This is only a segment of an article published by ... (
show quote)
Thank you for bringing this to us.
Not a "credible source" of his own inspiration? That's RICH!!! Sounds like Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source for ANY information!!!
Bevos wrote:
Thank you for bringing this to us.
Not a "credible source" of his own inspiration? That's RICH!!! Sounds like Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source for ANY information!!!
I have found very little on Wikipedia worth bothering with. Used it to check out some data on dog diseases and it was so off I figured they were not valid on anything more complicated.
Sometimes, you have to dig deep to find the Truth.
What a world!
I tried to find out about the senators and not much on how they voted and who funds them. Just a crock!!!!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.