I loved Shaun Cammack’s piece about the opinionated side of Wikipedia (“Wikipedia’s righteous, opinionated, utterly absorbing fight over the truth,” Ideas, July 10), but his conclusion that it has the same problems as any other social media platform and therefore should be avoided gave me whiplash.
It seemed like a stirring defense of Wikipedia’s principles — forcing users to “get on the same page” and reach…….
More On RSS Feeds
- Meghan Markle Reportedly Got Her Wikipedia Page Changed After She Met Prince Harry - MarieClaire.com
- Madison names Morrison as the next Athletic Director effective immediately - 953wiki.com
- Sola Onayiga Wiki, Biography, Age, Husband, Death, Age, Parents, Kids, Family, Net Worth & More - News Unzip
- Pop Smoke Height, Weight, Age, Wife, Net worth, Parents, Siblings, Wiki, Biography & More - News Unzip
- Which Free Digital Marketing Course Is Right for You? - CMSWire
I liked Shaun Cammack’s piece Regarding the opinionated facet of Wikipedia (“Wikipedia’s righteous, opinionated, utterly absorbing wrestle over The fact,” Ideas, July 10), however his conclusion that it has The identical factors as Ancompletely different social media platform and subsequently Ought to be prevented gave me whiplash.
It appeared like a stirring protection of Wikipedia’s guidelines — forcing clients to “get on The identical Website” and attain A regular understanding, regardless of their variations in opinions, is the remedy for misinformation and polarization. Pretty than lumping Wikipedia in with The completely different social media platforms, we Ought to be encouraging completely different platforms to take a Website out of its e-book to foster cooperation and wrestle disinformation.
I additionally disagree Collectively with his assertion that The state of affairs isn’t aesthetically pleasing. It is Amongst The numerous few websites that I truly discover nice to browse on my telephone.