5 Comments
User's avatar
John Loudon's avatar

Another abuse.

As a lawmaker during the time Wikipedia became a thing, my page was created, I assume by our communications staff. It was pretty basic and I chose not to do anything with it. Then…

My appointment to an advisory position with the Trump allied, AFPI earned me a smear piece by a CNN commando team that smears Republicans for a living. I was never contacted for the “story,” which merely reviewed my social media posts to draw conclusions about my alleged “misogynist” views, etc. The same reporters then edited my Wiki page to link their smear story.

There was no way to remove the obvious propaganda. Administrators put it right back up anytime it’s removed. Naturally, anytime anyone tries to add anything positive, that is removed.

Republican politicians invariably suffer a different standard from statist politicians.

Unmask the Wikipedia editors. Let’s have transparency.

Expand full comment
Susan G's avatar

I still use the very biased Wikipedia because I thought facts (i.e., date and place of birth, education, spouses, work history) could be relied upon. Thanks, Sharyl, for opening my eyes wide open. Guess I'll finally give up relying on this site for anything.

Expand full comment
Richard's avatar

Thanks for all that Sharyl. Though I am just an ordinary citizen and rarely visit Wikipedia, I have noticed 'slanted' articles there a few times, articles that ALWAYS support some Official Conspiracy Theory or other. I think anybody who relies upon the site for accurate information is naive as hell.

Expand full comment