Review Time
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but then anyone can be a reviewer. If you have verifiable evidence, as long as you add it to the article, it's acceptable. Knowing to look at the references rather than the article is a good way to use Wikipedia, as the article may need editing. I've lost hours surfing the different topics on there, and found so much information that my brain can't take it all in! I'd love to do a 6-degrees of separation of the articles on there!
I have two PhDs and many scientific publications, on Wikipedia’s discussion pages I asked for the correction of a number of articles on other topics, that make FALSE STATEMENTS and which use FAKE NEWS as sources, and I did it with all due respect and décor. They didn’t correct anything but BLOCKED me (a certain “LuchoCR” but that is a fake name, all I know is that the guy is from Costa Rica) and insulted me with a lot of humiliating, untruthful, demeaning terms, I only asked them to CORRECT the articles. Many other serious scholars I know, including American and British ones, have received similar aggressive mistreatments, harassments and intimidations, even more, I learned about Wikipedia’s employees who are treated that way. Wikipedia behaves like the MAFIA or like groups outside the law. There’s no PEER REVIEW WHATSOEVER ON WIKIPEDIA, so the people who writes there lacks the most minimum academic qualifications to write on an “encyclopedia”, they wouldn’t even get to secretaries nor to motorcycle messengers in a serious university. I even complained to wikipedia’s LEGAL DEPARTMENT (whom, too, are some certain ANONYMOUS users who don’t reveal their true identities) and I was basically told is that, if I didn’t like it, I should sue them in the US, they claimed only to be exerting their RIGHT TO FREE EXPRESSION. Then they shouldn’t call themselves an “encyclopedia” if what they are expressing is TENDENTIOUS PERSONAL OPINIONS under anonymity, instead of scientific or proven facts. In those articles, just like that, they wrote that (according to them), certain politicians are “murderers”, “thieves”, “terrorists”, “drug dealers”, etc., and take a number of FAKE NEWS as source, despite none of those politicians has any trials or lawsuits against and much less have been convicted of anything at all, in what seems to be quite a MISINFORMATION campaign by Wikipedia, under the false and glorified name of “encyclopedia”, by a CLIQUE of ANONYMOUS ADMINISTRATORS and LIBRARIANS or under FAKE NAMES who take advantage of their anonymity, not only to exert aggressive conducts that would be FELONIES in any other place that wasn’t the internet, but to “officialize” FAKE NEWS, CALUMNIES and present pretty many FALSEHOODS as “official”, in what seems to be a series of CRIMINAL FELONIES, taking advantage of anonymity and of the fact that many of the directly affected, being from or living in other countries, would have a hard time suing them in the US. WIKIPEDIA’s DISCLAIMERS confess that all or part of what they publish is FALSE, UNETHICAL, ILLEGAL or OBJETIONABLE. Even articles on science topics on WIKIPEDIA, according to a study by NATURE, hve at least 4 errors and omissions, many more than Encyclopedia Britannica. While articles on science are pretty poor, WIKIPEDIA’S articles on history or politics are 0,0% reliable for being plagued by FALSE STATEMENTS and FAKE NEWS. MIT decided not to admit Wikipedia nor its sources in academic works at MIT, that’s the size of the issue. I don’t recommend WIKIPEDIA whatsoever, BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL AND USE OTHER WEBSITES AS ACADEMIC REFERENCE: besides routine “gang”-like behaviors and aggressions towards users and editors and towards their own employees, a big part of the information is FALSE.
Claim your business profile now and gain access to all features and respond to customer reviews.
