Forum Post: A member of the 1% censors the Wikipedia
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 28, 2012, 3:49 p.m. EST by Hotcrocodile
(2)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
LOL, look at the edit war here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Late-2000s_recession&action=history
This is the paragraph being disputed:
Large corporations and wealthy businessmen were minimally affected by the recession, and were the first to recover. Shortly after the economic recovery began, many Fortune 500 corporations reported record profits and many billionaires saw their net worths hit new highs.[9][10][11][12] The 2011 edition of the annual U.S. dollar billionaires ranking compiled by Forbes Magazine broke new records, both in terms of the number of billionaires (1210) and their total wealth (US $4.5 trillion.)[13]
That is pretty funny, I've got to admit.
Hmm . . . 4.5 trillion . . . just about the size of the national debt.
Actual ND is about 15 trillionish
Holy crap! It's been awhile since I saw that figure!
[Removed]
[Removed]
Wikipedia is total biased crap and one sided political propaganda. and all you whiny little cry babies aren't going to change that fact by your whining about us telling the truth about that on here.
Wikipedia has had a really strong political bias of their own for a long time now. Anything that anyone writes on there that dosn't go along with their paticular views and bais gets censored.
Anything that doesn't follow OWS talking points get's deleted in this forum. Your point is what?
Make a post on the FORUM and talk about "Obama is Owned by Goldman Sachs", or ... "OBAMA got more money from the bankers than any RNC candidate", and watch how quick it gets deleted on this forum, ... same day. Why? Because the OWS only exists to re-elect obama 2012.
Wiki is 100000000X more FAIR than OWS, ... OWS is Orwellian to the MAX.
Your obviously psychotic try to take your meds and relax . I do not represent occupy wall street idiot...I merely comment on the forum lol.
Any "resource" that can be edited by any goof is not a reliable resource for research purposes.
Well, it's a decent secondary source, especially to find consolidated information (you go to the footnotes to find authoritative source material, and leads on where to look next). But other than that ... Wikipedia should not (as a general rule) be used as a primary source in research (although as a source of general information, stuff we're just curious about, it's a great resource, not perfect, but it's definitely a great service to the public).