For number one, there are articles that express different voices around a topic. Definitions often have multiple sections to express different voicws. Do they not?
I think a political project is a different beast from wikipedia. There will be some biases but not as its grounding purpose.
The consensus is somehow already constructed by the current set up. Most people just don’t (and my feeling is that will and should not, like in the case of vaccine scienxe) participate.
We need a federated Wikipedia (Fedipedia)
I feel like that is a mixed bag
It really isn’t bad as is
Why?
1, 2, 3 are just really really bad…
And 4 makes no sense.
For number one, there are articles that express different voices around a topic. Definitions often have multiple sections to express different voicws. Do they not?
I think a political project is a different beast from wikipedia. There will be some biases but not as its grounding purpose.
The consensus is somehow already constructed by the current set up. Most people just don’t (and my feeling is that will and should not, like in the case of vaccine scienxe) participate.
Censorship of which kind, though?
I mean governments such as the Trump regime specifically in regard to information about politicians
I liked the idea in your first comment but all your reasonings for it are backward.