  > advocating for whitelisting of sources like Fox News

As I understood it, he wasn't advocating for whitelisting Fox News, he was advocating for removing the blacklist. That's a stark difference.

  > it's not a good look for Sanger either way.

What doesn't look good for him? It doesn't seem that he has an intent other than enabling the viewpoint of those other than the far-left, which compromise almost the entirety of Wikipedias admins and editors.

▲ jdlshore a day ago | parent | next [-]

> the far-left, which compromise almost the entirety of Wikipedias admins and editors.

Yeah, citation needed on that one.

▲ vrganj 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can you show me a single far left wikipedia admin?

	▲	archagon a day ago \| parent [-]
		Heh, I remember being surprised when I looked up the editor for some great Russian history articles and saw that he identified as a straight-up monarchist. Wikipedia editors are a bunch of diverse, geeky kooks.

▲ peppersghost93 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>he was advocating for removing the blacklist.

Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. If he got his way the website would quickly be overrun with right wing misinformation campaigns. I hope he stays banned.

▲

dotancohen 12 hours ago | parent [-]

For many topics Wikipedia is well known to be overrun with left wing campaigns - LGBT, and US political topics chief among them.

I'd rather see neither side successfully oust the other. But it seems that the left got there first and is entrenched.

▲

peppersghost93 11 hours ago | parent [-]

For many topics right wing ideas are just factually incorrect. This isn't Wikipedia's fault.

	▲	dotancohen 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		For many topics left wing propaganda are inconsistent with established science and with Western culture. This isn't Wikipedia's fault, but Wikipedia and her readers suffer due to the left having gotten a stranglehold on Wikipedia.