---

In response to the reply accusing this comment of bias: When people said this two years ago, they were accused of bias. But now, in the present, with the benefit of hindsight and more information, it's a mainstream fact, and Wikipedia does report on it. We also know that major news organizations were aware of this at the time and chose not to report it. After round earth theory becomes mainstream, it's not bias to talk about why it took so long for round earth theory to be recognized.

I like how the article adds weight to mainstream vs fringe. But it occurs to me that some ideas are given so little attention that there is no substantial basis of what is fringe and what is mainstream.

> The threshold for including material in Wikipedia is that it is verifiable, not merely that we think it is true

> Wikipedia acknowledges diverse viewpoints on contemporary controversies, but represents them in proportion to their prevalence

Sounds great! Now compare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War

So here's my problem. There is only one viewpoint present on the Gaza page. For comparison, the Kremlin's justification and explanation about the war is extensively detailed in the third paragraph on the Ukraine page.

And the fact that the Ukrainian war, specifically the agressive role of the Kremlin, is a controversy only on wikipedia pretty much shows what exactly wikipedia's slant is, doesn't it?

There are other ... what I would call "neutrality issues":

For some reason the word "dictator" is not mentioned here, nor is the fact that both the Chavez and Maduro families are multi-billionnaire families: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Revolution

Did you know Iran never had any socialists or students in their ayatollah-dictatorship revolution? Perhaps should I say that the CIA's miniscule role is thoroughly mentioned, but international socialism massive role is entirely left out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

(you will still find these facts if you dig into the detail pages on wikipedia, but the fact that they were critical, even were the origin of the Iranian revolution, is not mentioned on the Iranian revolution page)

More generally, the links between leftism and violent anti-immigration and anti-LGBT policies and anti-Youth policies in general are extremely hard to find (good luck finding, for example, that the current leader of the UN, in his youth as a violent communist, used violence against LGBT protestors, or that he beat a few of his own students into the hospital (he was a professor) when "discussing" communism ... hell, you will not even find that he betrayed communism, socialism and essentially everything he has ever believed in)

And the links known to exist between international socialism and world events are downplayed and not mentioned. Their discussions on Ukraine before the Holodomor genocide, or their attitude before, during and after the Cultural revolution genocide in China are not mentioned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International

This illustrates a general problem: "communist dictatorship", well, those don't exist.

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org+%22comm... ... (note: what is mentioned is the "The Presidential Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship" that Romania has, if you go to the page of Romania you will not find any mention of the actual communist dictatorship, again, the viewpoint of the Romanian government, which is that it replaced a communist dictatorship, cannot be found)

Did you know that North Korea is not communist? It is a "a highly centralized, one-party totalitarian dictatorship" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea#Government_and_pol...

Same for "socialist dictatorship", where you will only find explanations of Marxist theory, not the many disasters, some of which mentioned above.

Or, how about, important leftist figures. Even when leftists claim they've betrayed leftism like Guterrez or Chavez, but let's go for more iconic figures. For example, Leon Trotsky was the commander of the Red Army when it executed the "red terror" in Russia. Therefore he is a genocidal war criminal, and for example, his soldiers broken the arms and legs of hundreds of Russian Imperial sailors ... and threw them into the freezing seas. He was the commander of a military force burned down schools with kids inside. Now go read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

This text explicitly and implicitly states that the Earth is not flat.

Musk has his own problems, of course. But I'm really looking forward to grokipedia breaking the monopoly on what's "serious" by the very unserious leadership of wikipedia.

Every single scientific/engineering /humanities field contains people who disagree with the mainstream of that field. E.g. every advocate for purely functional programming diverges from the mainstream on the best practices for software engineering. Of course that doesn't mean equating this to "theories" about the earth being flat. My point is the exact opposite.

There always is a gradient between a debate in some field, to a totally bizarre nonsense theory. Deciding on a border between which of these views to platform and which of them to disregard is always arbitrary and has to be decided on a case by case basis. Especially arguing based on some idea of relative numerical superiority is just ridiculous and will make an encyclopedia look ridiculous.