zlacker

The first time the excuse was some gibberish about "primary sources."

The second time was something more esoteric, which I can't remember.

Then Wikipedia deleted my account during some transition and I lost interest in the whole thing.

>>Sanjay+(OP)
That gibberish about primary sources is one of the fundamental ways in which Wikipedia stays at least partially accurate. Wikipedia is not a blog, it's just meant to be a gathering of information from other sources. So adding facts which are not anywhere else online is not the sign of a broken system, it's the sign of a system that cares about citations and about being a reliable source of information. It's unfortunate when people try to add factual things, but if anyone was able to edit Wikipedia to add whatever, it would have become a cesspool long ago.

>>satiri+522
> Wikipedia is not a blog

That's the second time today someone has said that to me. Is this the prescribed mantra to justify their obvious lack of objectivity?

Take Trump's entry for example: looks like a blog, walks like blog, talks like a blog.

I suggest you have a look at what the co-founder of Wikipedia has to say about it. Larry Sanger, not that Wales fellow.