You can simply do a Wikipedia search for "misinformation doctor" and get plenty of results, even with its search system, let alone if you use a search engine to power the search.

I would think that posting any particular person would descend in to a pointless argument over whether those claims are merited. Do you have some better reason to want a particular name?

▲

qudade 6 hours ago | parent [-]

If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected. Unless you are claiming that all hits for "misinformation doctor" are incorrect, a few examples to verify and correct would be helpful.

▲

nephihaha an hour ago | parent | next [-]

"If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected."

It depends on its nature.

▲

hagbard_c 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Some 'misinformation' is hard to correct because the corrections are reversed by those who are intent on spreading the 'misinformation'. This is especially prevalent around contentious and/or politically sensitive subjects like the mentioned SARS2-related cases. This is what makes it hard to trust articles on such subjects on Wikipedia.

	▲	komali2 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If this is quite widespread, it should be fairly straightforward to point to an example of a page that's being defaced with misinformation, which would include an edit history and perhaps a Talk page documenting whatever sides to the debate there is that's preventing consensus. I don't disagree that weird bullshit occasionally happens on Wikipedia, but I have noticed that as soon as light is cast on it, it usually evaporates and a return to factual normality is established.
	▲	breppp 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		worse yet, you might read some topics and won't expect them to be poisoned with misinformation. Like the Holocaust history in Poland https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/history_news_articles/151... https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/how-wikipedia-covers-th...