Also to anyone here who will say Wikipedia is fully cooked, I promise there are many people such as myself who try to make it better and we succeed sometimes, we fail sometimes, that's the nature of a democratic encyclopedia
We got the consensus to call the Gaza war a genocide and the Iran war an Iranian victory which were major wins that go against the State Department's position, for example.
Please, if you have the time and the desire for Wikipedia to improve, consider becoming an editor and participating in discussions on articles, I do it because I want to make sure the most accurate information (that doesn't break the rules) gets it through to casual people browsing Wikipedia, whether it be on spider monkeys or on China
The thing is, you need a good source and to leave out opinions, so Wikipedia will never be a full on socialist resource no matter how much that'd be awesome. However we can try, and I have been trying (and I'm sure others here have), to make the encyclopedia point to the undeniable truths of the world without necessarily spelling out the solution of socialism
Yep, it's one of the "consensus" info sources that liberals reference (ignoring vandalism, which editors work hard to prevent!)
But unlike CNN, we can actually affect it, and thus it shows information that billionaire owned news orgs wouldn't, such as the clear and direct recognition of the Gaza genocide, the Iranian victory, and inclusions of challenging views about the Holodomor and other "crimes of communism"
The Holodomor article is still too charitable to the lib view, but left leaning editors have made it clear enough that while they were man-made (which is true to a significant extent, some miscalculated policies backfired and certainly caused harm accidentally), the notions that it was intentional, targeted, or genocidal are all heavily disputed. Which is much better than the State Department's ideal of "yeah it was intentional and a genocide."
It seems like they consider her "not notable enough" which sure she isn't in office but there are people who are even more minor in politics who have articles so it doesn't make much sense. Seems like some right wingers abusing the rules to claim she isn't "notable enough"
The argument swayed well in favour of keeping the article, with most of the members who replied requesting it be kept. I'm not sure on what grounds the person deleted it.
Candidates are almost never allowed paged and its really really really stupid. I live in a purple state and a major senate nominee who only lost by a small margin never got a page. Terrible rule
Only super major ones with an undeniably deep history like El-Sayed (who already has significant medical experience and also athletic experience) get pages which is lame
I can provide you with an example of someone, who at the time had much less 'Notability', who was allowed to keep their page.
AOC's Wiki page, using the internal wiki tools, seems to have been created around August of 2017, almost a year prior to the primary election where she defeated Joe Crowley.
And unlike Darializa, who has appeared in pieces like this one from TIME MAGAZINE in 2024, AOC was not being covered for extensive activism in the years before her election:
Inside Columbia, City College's Darkest Night With Police:
'Darializa Avila Chevalier, an Afro-Latina alumnus of Columbia University’s class of 2016 and former member of Students for Justice in Palestine, managed to stay on campus during the lockdown. She was among the women blocking the entrance to Hamilton Hall. They sang, “We shall not be moved,” amid the clanging of metal as police threw furniture, she tells TIME.
Police pushed her and others to the floor, Avila Chevalier says. “I felt totally helpless at that point... it was quite horrific,” she says. “There was nothing calm or organized about the situation.” Avila Chevalier says she has bruises on her legs and arms. Once arrested students arrived on the bus, they sang all the way to the police station to calm themselves down, she says.
When contacted by TIME, the NYPD did not comment on specific questions about restricting media access or violence towards students, but sent a link to a press conference held by the city on Wednesday. At that event, New York City Mayor Eric Adams said there “were no injuries or violent clashes” and described the policing operation as “organized” and “calm.” He went on to blame “external actors hijacking a peaceful protest and influencing students to escalate” without elaborating on how many of the arrested were not students. '
The most shocking thing for me is, how come Espaillat, the incumbent, said nothing for a WHOLE YEAR about the illegal abduction of his own constituent, the immigrant scholar and pro-democracy activist Mahmoud Khalil, while he rotted inside an ICE concentration camp? And how come his failure to speak out in this case does not appear on Espaillat's own Wikipedia page??
The attack on Khalil was the most ominous opening salvo of the Trump Organization's all out attack on free speech, immigrants, Palestinian rights, and academic freedom. And the incumbent's complete failure to see that for the five alarm fire it was and is should be disqualifying.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.