>Anyone can edit Wikipedia

Hasn't been true in a very long time. Plenty of politically charged articles are locked so that only Wikipedia's editors can edit them, and you can guess which side they're taking. It's not a democracy.

▲

uqers 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

Could you give an example of an article that was protected for reasons other than preventing vandalism? I've seen other people bring this up, but never with evidence.

▲

PorciiVorbesc 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

Someone's opinion is always gonna be someone else's vandalism.

I could bring an example, but then what protection do I have from the HN mob flag-bombing it?

▲

Waterluvian 15 minutes ago | parent [-]

You're entitled to no protection, nor are we entitled to you providing an example. But if you don't want to provide an example, your claim immediately turns to dust. This is just the fundamental core of rationalism.

The sky is green. I won't be taking any questions.

(actually the sky really was green a few days ago, related to tornado weather!)

	▲	PorciiVorbesc 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> But if you don't want to provide an example, your claim immediately turns to dust. That's not how it works in reality. If people disagree with the example it's dust anyway, except now you also wasted your time. My opinion is irrelevant here since if people have made up their minds that WIkipedia is not biased and takes sides, then no example will suffice and they simple ask for an example just to have a target to shoot at. I've been on this rodeo before. There's no guarantee of a good faith argument when politics are involved. I have no guarantee I'm not dealing with people arguing in bad faith, so I'd rather not even start to save time and sanity. If you think it's dust, then so be it, I don't mind, I don't lose anything from this, nor do I gain anything from trying to convince you I'm right. I have my opinion, you have yours and we can leave it at that.