Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)

7. I was involved in one of those edit wars once

Reply to petronius (Original post)

Mon May 5, 2014, 11:55 AM

May 2014

I was drawing information from documented sources that included eye witnesses and first hand accounts. The edits would revert back to the un-sourced factually challenged versions with little or no explanation of the edits. It became pretty obvious there was a political agenda at work.

Since it wasn't really that important to me, I gave up the battle pretty quickly.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Wikipedia: where truth dies online [View all] petronius May 2014 OP

I tend to go with the source links to read the articles as they were written... KoKo May 2014 #1

Very true - the references portion is a valuable part of any wiki page, petronius May 2014 #4

You mean, like this? DetlefK May 2014 #2

I hadn't seen that before, but I think that's what they had in mind petronius May 2014 #3

When we were kids back in those days, Brigid May 2014 #5

I used to edit on Wikipedia davidpdx May 2014 #6

I imagine it's an interesting experience. But yeah, the proverbial pinch of salt is needed. arcane1 May 2014 #9

I was involved in one of those edit wars once wyldwolf May 2014 #7

The new York times: where less about Iraq killed many nt Jemon May 2014 #8