>>18378896>Has anyone had any success on the Wikipedia front of political discourse?>I literally spent hours debating other editors on why the verbiage for this article should read "unproven" instead of "false" just to get permabanned.>How the hell can they can they pass this off as unbiased?Yes, I have. Wikipedia is run by communists, literally. And no, that isn't conservative hyperbole. I won't name names so I don't dox myself, but I made pages for and edited the pages of numerous dissident researchers in various fields. Almost immediately the editors started discussion pages to justify their propositions for deletions. They argued that these people were not notable enough for Wikipedia. I argued against them by showing that those same editors had created pages about people who were less notable by orders of magnitude and therefore their argument was a mere excuse to hide their political motives. Alas, I lost and the pages were deleted. Then they started coming after pages I had made about historical figures and deleted them too.
In short, Wikipedia as a cultural entity is entirely skewed in bias to the far left. Even the creator of Wikipedia has talked about this. There is almost no winning, ever. Almost every topic is edited/written in favour of a communist perspective -- if it is possible to insert one.
