I do not get into it
The biggest issue on Wiki might be poor distribution of diverse quality editors to balance pages. Good pages usually have a large pool of diverse editors. So the processes set up to create a good page actually are good, but do not work without the right work environment and ppl. What good are rules and processes when they are flaunted by agenda and dishonest editing? Double standards? Well I can un-watch and put my energy elsewhere.
A Balanced Article
No "good article" should ever expose the politics of its editors. You should read it an never know the race, religion, geography, or politics of its editors.
My area of expertise
I am a Muslim African working in South Africa at a University, my field is African identity politics, racism, slavery and Islam in Africa. I have experience within the African American community, the African Diaspora (including those in Israel), and have detailed understanding of issues related to the Pan-African community, or African conscious movement (black consciousness), Afrocentrism. I read the work of Malcolm X, Maulana Karenga, Pilger, Chomsky, Du Bois, Chris Hedges, Garvey, etc. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia to add to what I feel is seriously lacking: And I will quote Alison Baile. In its quest for certainty, Western philosophy continues to generate what it imagines to be colorless and genderless accounts of knowledge, reality, morality, and human nature
A reliable source is Not CNN or some out of print book that no one reads
it is backward to think that in our new info world that we need to depend on dusty books for RS. Books that the users of Wikipedia cannot access. Books which are actually not read by many. More merit must be given to the statement, than Oh Noam Chomsky said it, or Bernard Lewis said it. All of them can be dead wrong. esp BBC and its racist view of everything outside of Europe. B.c per Wikipedia Reliable is greater than being right or inclusive of a plural worldview.
||This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject.|
|This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source.|
- . "". Missing or empty