Difference between revisions of "Wikipedia/Notability"
(WP tag) |
(image) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{concept | {{concept | ||
|WP=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability | |WP=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability | ||
| + | |image=WP-notablity.jpg | ||
|description=Wikipedia's supposedly impartial test used to censor topics, ideas and evidence from Wikipedia, while easy admission of disinformation sourced from {{ccm}}. | |description=Wikipedia's supposedly impartial test used to censor topics, ideas and evidence from Wikipedia, while easy admission of disinformation sourced from {{ccm}}. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 06:43, 12 September 2015
 Wikipedia/Notability 
 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Wikipedia's supposedly impartial test used to censor topics, ideas and evidence from Wikipedia, while easy admission of disinformation sourced from commercially-controlled media. |
Official narrative
Wikipedia should only include "notable" articles, so it needs "a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article"[1].
Problems
Wikipedia has an explicitly establishment friendly policy of assuming that commercially-controlled media is reliable, even though they are legally allowed to lie.[2] Moreover, events that the corporate media choose to ignore are not deemed 'notable', allowing those who can censor the commercially-controlled media to effectively censor Wikipedia. Certain lines of thought in particular are reverted within minutes.
Criteria
The primary criterion used by Wikipedia to determine notability is that a subject has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time... from reliable independent sources". By excluding individual researchers (no oversight => questionable by definition), this cedes de facto control of topics to commercially-controlled media. This policy means that Wikipedia, although created mainly by volunteers, amplifies the power of those who have editorial control over television and other commercially-controlled media - those which they do not report on are excluded from Wikipedia.
Examples
Wikipedia's article on Le Cercle was cut down due to reliance on the same "self-published source" cited on Wikispooks to just over 200 words, as of December 2013, notwithstanding the fact that that source is the most informative source available.
Kevin Annett has been repeatedly censored as non-notable, decades of remarkable, devoted and successful work notwithstanding.
Abuse
Anonymous edits from IPs registered to the UK Government claimed that the death of Lee Rigby was “not notable enough” for an article pertaining to terrorism.[3]
Rating
9 July 2019 Robin An explanation of one of the pillars of Wikipedia's censorship.Wikipedia's explicit policy on what belongs there is very revealing. This explains how it allows Wikipedia to be an effective extension of Operation Mockingbird.
