Well, just update it with more neutral sources. The English Wikipedia leans towards whatever most contributing English speakers lean, obviously, but I doubt they’ll frown upon fresh information from any source.
Edit: okay, it doesn’t work like that, thanks, I understand.
More neutral sources are typically classified as untrustworthy or are even banned by the editors/moderators in control of the site. They do indeed frown upon fresh information when it contradicts their chosen narrative.
This is mostly wrong, with only some exceptions to this rule. There’s so many articles on Wikipedia it might seem like you can edit it freely, but the numbers and structure of wikipedia do not show this at all.
Wikipedia is a tool of imperialism that is completely overrun with US-aligned interest groups from the admins to the prolific users; you can read more here: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia (and then head on to the discussion page where there is further reading because there’s just so much to cover we couldn’t even fit it all!).
As an editor of Wikipedia and Wiktionary for 14+ years now, they absolutely do frown upon this and will throw a temper tantrum, up to and including banning your account, IP, and locking the page with revisions back to whatever version they most approve of. If they lack these powers, they’ll start an edit war and use whatever sway they do have to force a lockdown and revision of the page.
This typically occurs on the most politically charged pages, but it can and will occur anywhere else that someone decides to throw down a claim. I have done edits mostly on the subject of linguistics (such as adding IPA pronunciations, adding new word entries and translations in other languages), cleaning up graffiti, ensuring standards of editing are met, correcting mistakes/misspellings, etc., and have still had to deal with pedantry.
Well, just update it with more neutral sources. The English Wikipedia leans towards whatever most contributing English speakers lean, obviously, but I doubt they’ll frown upon fresh information from any source.
Edit: okay, it doesn’t work like that, thanks, I understand.
More neutral sources are typically classified as untrustworthy or are even banned by the editors/moderators in control of the site. They do indeed frown upon fresh information when it contradicts their chosen narrative.
This is mostly wrong, with only some exceptions to this rule. There’s so many articles on Wikipedia it might seem like you can edit it freely, but the numbers and structure of wikipedia do not show this at all.
Wikipedia is a tool of imperialism that is completely overrun with US-aligned interest groups from the admins to the prolific users; you can read more here: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia (and then head on to the discussion page where there is further reading because there’s just so much to cover we couldn’t even fit it all!).
As an editor of Wikipedia and Wiktionary for 14+ years now, they absolutely do frown upon this and will throw a temper tantrum, up to and including banning your account, IP, and locking the page with revisions back to whatever version they most approve of. If they lack these powers, they’ll start an edit war and use whatever sway they do have to force a lockdown and revision of the page.
This typically occurs on the most politically charged pages, but it can and will occur anywhere else that someone decides to throw down a claim. I have done edits mostly on the subject of linguistics (such as adding IPA pronunciations, adding new word entries and translations in other languages), cleaning up graffiti, ensuring standards of editing are met, correcting mistakes/misspellings, etc., and have still had to deal with pedantry.