The Problem With Wikipedia is That it Cherry-Picks its Facts

1. It takes people on who have BURNING agendas, and frozen-in-time beliefs. They cherry-pick to establish the basis for a POV that can be, and often is, a complete illusion. The deep desire here is to represent the victorious army that will now write the history.
2. Editors at Wikipedia have told me, and I quote: “People only want to read what is popular.”
3. Whether facts that do not support a particular supposition are left on the cheery tree. How convenient. And facts that give a much broader context, and a far more accurate one, are hung on the clothesline as public recognition of reality. That can be a reality that is defined by a very select few, and can be entirely BOGUS.

4. They do not listen to outside voices.

5. They will define history. And in that process, they will define you. Never let anyone define you. Ever.

6. They take their selected cherries, and they hang them on another cherry tree.

7. No one has ever sued them. It’s time.

8. No one on the inside is interested in the elimination of bias.

9. They have financial arrangements and deals with companies like Facebook and Google that picks up Wikipedia content, and then regurgitates it with no attribution, making it seem as if this content was created at Facebook or Google. This is disingenuous, cheap, potentially libelous, slanderous, inaccurate, and represents fundamentally malicious intent. Editors are frequently anything but neutral, and use the thing to push their own agendas. And the top level of Wikipedia does not care.

They have refined cherry picking to a fine art: Example: How are the dates of my marriage and divorce statistics relevant and germane to anything whatsoever. Does this add any understanding of any aspect to my work in video, publishing, or as an advocate for children. It has no bearing. It is not significant. Yet Wikipedia holds it up like the carcass of a dead cat drenched in rain as moral evidence that anything I might have created is morally misaligned and defective because it was made by someone with a dicorce somewhere in their past.

10. Wikipedia needs to grow up.

11. They focus on one tiny part of a past and hold that up, too, the same dead cat caught in an alley, disemboweled, and hung from the upper branches of yet another cherry tree for someone to come along and pick this little bastard up as coming from the mouth of god.

12. Wikipedia claims it has a license on the truth. They don’t know the truth because they can’t handle the truth. Their version of the truth is always black and white. The picked cherries that it holds so dear paint all individuals in good or bad brush strokes that remove any grey area that might cause the reader to question anything as perhaps being more nuanced than Wikipedia wants to pull its head out of its ass to look at in reflection, horror, or amazement. It’s shit because what they see is shit because its head is in its ass. It takes sixty seconds from the film that is a life and they jump up and down and scream they have the entire enchillada.

“Because people only want to read what is popular.”

Their words. Not mine.

Wikipedia is often patently absurd, and it is always beneath contempt.