This post is written on behalf of the LabPlot team. It’s different compared to what we usually publish on our homepage but we feel we need to share this story with our community.
Wikipedia is great when there can be no controversy but as soon as there is anything that can be controversial I wouldn’t trust it as far as I could kick it. 50% of its content is next to useless.
It is sad as the original concept was good but it is no longer my go to site for information.
I second that. Nowadays wikipedia is extremely biased and has a very strong “political” agenda. Good choice of words indeed, “…when there can be no controversy…”. Yet, even then…
I mean, I know people trust Wikipedia, just like they trust that one reporter, that website, their best friend, Pastor Phil, Aunt Elise and their cousin Vinnie. It takes experience, skills, education, and hard work to sift useful information from the nonsense, propaganda, and biased agendas that surround us, but that’s always been true.
Amen (let’s say, cause I’m agnostic 
).
Kind regards.
It’s a shame to see a good effort go to waste, but if I were you guys I would give up. You’ve got better things to do than fight vindictive little Hitlers. They always find a niche where they have some power they can wield and in this instance it’s Wikipedia.
When I was in school they taught us not to trust Wikipedia and forbade us from using it as a source. Now Wikipedia is used to “fact check” politically charged news. Lots of ideological capture occurred under Katherine Maher.
There is nothing new about this, except, perhaps, the efficiency of the censorship.
You can start by looking at the page for Jimmy Wales which fails to mention that he started his career running adult websites and that there are allegations that he traded sexual favors for enhanced treatment on Wikipedia.
Holistic health has always been treated as witchcraft.
The Cardano page was deleted and then locked up with bad information for years until someone facilitated a conversation directly between Mr. Wales and Charles Hoskinson, the founder of Cardano.
These are just the instances I know about. I have heard of many more.
Wikipedia needs to be replaced by a decentralized alternative. Apparently, it does not want to improve itself or make things right.
While I agree with the core principle that Wikipedia isn’t to be blindly trusted, and that internal politics and super-editor biases diminish the quality of the product…I don’t know that LabPlot, or the process described in the blog post, is the best example to use to point that out.
Without any outside context, the initial “ask” was to have the editors basically trust that a website created by a project team to promote the project is objective information (when the first version submitted was heavily promotional in tone), and that KDE-provided information should be valid as the only source for the article.
Looking at articles for other programs, I’d argue there’s still an over-reliance on sources written by the subject of the article, but articles for LibreOffice and Microsoft Office at least show that some statements are being sourced by third-parties who are theoretically providing more independent validation of their contents.
None of that is perfect, and I do agree with the ultimate premise that Wikipedia’s principles aren’t consistently applied and aren’t handled well with potential new contributors, leading to folks being driven away who could have contributed positively to the project.
This comment was mistakenly previously addressed to another person. Before making any final conclusions, we suggest reading the latest updates to the blog post.
While Wikipedia is a valuable resource, its open-edit nature means that some information may be inaccurate or biased. It’s generally trustworthy for general knowledge, but it’s always a good idea to cross-check important facts with other reliable sources.
I get the “promotional” part if someone was getting in there saying we’re better than xyz and using false information regarding xyz. But practically every piece of software in existence compares themselves to their competitors. In fact if you look up any sw category on wikipedia they have an article comparing all the known players. Who better to provide information on a piece of sw than the actual people who have produced it?! If they objected to the tone of your update and gave you pointers on how to rewrite it ok but drawing you down like that and deleting your article is completely unacceptable in my view. It is very sad that basically the entire internet has become this way due to analytics, seo and the never-ending greed so many of these companies are persuing now. I just laugh when I watch the financial news and everyone is so high on AI. Very few of them if any mention the old GIGO concept and that most of these things are being manipulated to produce the behavior they want with no regard at all to “intelligence”. I sure miss the “good ol’ days” of the internet. 