SteemIt Does Not Meet Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines
I thought I would check Wikipedia's article on STEEM.
The article URL forwarded to its article on SteemIt.
Forwarding "Steem" to "SteemIt" is dis-information because STEEM and Steemit are two dramatically different things. The first is a social medial platform. The second is a crypto-currency.
Anyway, the top of the Wikipedia's page has this little blurb:
SteemIt doesn't meet the notability standards of the cesspool in cyberspace called Wikipedia.
BTW: The wiki page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEEM was deleted.
I don't like doing research with Wikipedia, but it is a good place to verify facts such as the time and date of an event. I've noticed that the editors at Wikipedia have been deleting a large number of important articles.
I started making a list of articles that contain important information that has been deleted by the propagandists at Wikipedia. My list is just the things that I encounter. I keep encountering billion dollar corporations that have been deleted.
I think everyone should be doing this. Don't bother with the wiki-talk. If you have a web site just write down the dis-information that you encounter on Wiki.
PS: I suspect that others have noticed this. I didn't do a search because I believe the disingenuous nature of wikipedia is an issue that bears repeating.
Giggles, wikipedia tells a different story in a different language. Just one of those things that make you go, hmmm, ..if you speak more than one language of course.
To me it's peculiar because for the stories to match from one language to another, all that has to happen is an accurate translation. When the difference between languages encompass 3/4 of a page, it's obvious the translator fell asleep behind the keyboard, lol!!!
The fact that different language editions have different editors is one of the few saving graces of Wikipedia. Bilingual folks can read different versions and see that there are radically different perspectives of each event.
Despite that, I think it was a huge mistake for the academic community to elevate one site to the position of primary authority on the web.
IMHO, the more search engines and more sites dedicated to historical research, the better.
Compare Prescott Bush, Dutch and English.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush
All they had to do was translate; they didn't. The difference is stunning to say the least and you don't even have to speak both languages to know that the Dutch version lacks a lot of information. This goes beyond an editor's personal or cultural perspective. I have found examples that were much worse, but can't remember off the top of my head what they were.
Agreed, the more independent sources the more credible.
When possible, I have started using everipedia instead of wikipedia. Wikipedia was a fantastic idea for its time, but over the years, it has proven to be too easy for vested interests to learn how to capture the pages on controversial topics. I'm hoping that blockchain integration will take the concept to the next level.
There have been attempts to solve this within the last week, thanks to @vikisecrets. Unfortunately it does not seem to come to a good end either.