machinelearny | 5 points
WikipediaThere's a lot of very knowledgeable people on here it seems, a few reasonable people have been trying to get the existing wikipedia article about Ivermectin to be less biased, but to no avail. Perhaps if more people push them a bit? Or maybe one could somehow publicly shame wikipedia for their biased reporting? For that matter, the same goes for apnews, but I expected more of wikipedia for some reason.
[-] ClasseD-48 | 2 points
Forget it. Wikipedia's editors are very stubborn and getting outside criticism just makes them more resistant to change and stick to their guns.
I once was involved in one fight about a political article. The main editors on the page were dismissive and saying my arguments were bad, even if I quoted directly the relevant parts of the Wikipedia editing guidelines to support my point. It had to be escalated TWICE before they implemented something where they asked random other editors to comment on the article (not just the two established ones who had decided the current version I objected to). Basically all outside editors actually agreed with my position and I ended up winning, but it took two weeks at least, and I had straight applicable statements from their own guidelines to support me.
Until mainstream media sources start talking of the effectiveness of ivermectin, forget it, you can't win, you'll only alienate the Wikipedia editors.
[-] machinelearny | 2 points
Seems to be the consensus. So wikipedia is basically just a mirror of mainstream media.
[-] traveler19395 | 2 points
Basically all outside editors actually agreed with my position and I ended up winning, but it took two weeks at least, and I had straight applicable statements from their own guidelines to support me.
That actually sounds like a success story to me, if the article has a few years of history and not a rapidly developing subject. Wikipedia won't be trusted if it changes too quickly or is perceived to flip-flop-flip on issues, so it should take a little bit of pushing and time to make changes, with success in seeing change still possible.
I think Wikipedia only accepts information from approved sources - basically MSM. They do not even accept primary sources. I looked into becoming an editor some years ago, and this is what I found. I think you have about as much chance of shaming them into telling the truth as you have of shaming the NYT into telling the truth.
[-] machinelearny | 1 points
I have come to the same conclusion, trying to get the article less biased (not sure if it is political or big pharma) has proven impossible. Not even the smallest shift to something less biased is "permitted". Anything proposed doesn't meet the level of proof, but provably incorrect news articles are allowed as medical advice.
[-] eternalmandrake | 1 points
Why not just send them this? https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/ku7sz4/peer_reviewed_ivermectin_study/girj84i?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Have them read through the studies themselves.
[-] machinelearny | 3 points
Hehe, the point is really that they don't care. There appears to be an agenda against this information. As an example, it was requested that they just mention the date at which the NIH made their recommendation on Ivermectin. That was shot down. Then it was requested to just mention the fact that the NIH is reviewing the information after a meeting with the FLCCC, and that they will might update their guidance in February after this review. That was also not allowed.
The completely false APNews article is mentioned in two places on wikipedia, as statement of fact.
[-] [deleted] | 1 points
[deleted]
[-] passfailboat | 3 points | Jan 13 2021 14:22:10
All of these places are crawling with people with ideological agendas.
permalink