Wikipedia is hardly a non-profit organization. From experience, I witnessed to their bias actions on biographies such as that of Wendy Diamond. I supposed if others pay ...oops...\"donate\"... for hosting\/promoting their own businesses\/fame, Wiki will overlook certain negative truths and the excuses given are rather ridiculous: A Youtube video proves Diamond's argument on a T.V. show has been dismissed as \"could be an act\", which was obviously not and even so, why is this act not allowed to be called an act, but had to be completed covered up?<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, wikipedia is still a very good resource, one of the best online. This is one of the few examples where we can take full advantage of wikipedia's free offers while JUSTLY not be associated with it and have the freedom to even discredit its action.<\/p>\n
What if it runs out of fund? I doubt it would. But even if it does run out, there are others that will rise, hopefully, with better ethics.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Wikipedia is hardly a non-profit organization. From experience, I witnessed to their bias actions on biographies such as that of Wendy Diamond. I supposed if others pay ...oops...\"donate\"... for hosting\/promoting their own businesses\/fame, Wiki will overlook certain negative truths and … Continue reading