7 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
Steve Lord's avatar

The quirks of Wikipedia. You can become an editor, and if you can find reasonable sources, you can edit those historical facts into the Wiki entry, subject to Wikipedia's editorial standards.

Expand full comment
Linda Mitchell, KCMO's avatar

Alas, Wikipedia does not want actual experts in the subject of the article to write or edit them. I have experienced numerous instances where I have tried to correct woefully inaccurate information, only to have my edits rejected because I am a recognized "expert." I am also plagiarized all over Wikipedia in my field. Sigh.

Expand full comment
Steve Lord's avatar

Understood and agreed. Sometimes it's a great source - some times it's woefully misdirected by its attempts at egalitarian editing and editorial contribution standards.

I've managed to get my very minor contributions to stick by simply announcing what I know will be considered bias (no matter how well-sourced or well-received) but citing to other sources for authority for my edits.

Expand full comment
TPJ (MA)'s avatar

Wikipedia is accurate at least 51% of the time.

Expand full comment
Jay Jordet's avatar

This must be a guess since no one knows what constitues 100% wikipedia.

Expand full comment
Richard Burrill's avatar

Linda, are you intimating that Wikipedia is run by a bunch of today's Republicans? LOL

Expand full comment
MaryPat's avatar

ЁЯШТ

Expand full comment