Pagesquatting is effectively a single user controlling an entire page, with the ability to revert edits and prevent anyone else from editing the page. There are numerous political examples of pagesquatting.

> Keep watching OANN dude.

I don't watch news media because it's all garbage takes from CNN and Fox News to The Gaurdian and OANN.

All of it's trash yellow journalism disguised as information on the ground.

Find a local reliable outlet and read the print section occasionally and take it with a fucking grain of salt.

> Thinking I give a flying fuck about OANN

I use them as the case of being an extreme right-wing bias, why the FUCK do you think I think it's neutral btw? Why the hell are the only people arguing about this with me unable to parse an english sentence?

I only passingly mention Carl, T.D Adler did nothing wrong for calling out CoI on admins. Ryulong is a pagesquatter who still fundamentally shapes that page to this day.

You are actually just illiterate.

> Lmao you're putting MSNBC and HuffPost in the same category as OANN?

MSNBC is occasionally good.

Huffington post at best is a glorified opinion piece.

Get your head out of the sand and fucking see the world for what it is.

"I don't have my head in the sand" - Man who says the Huffington Post is accurate reporting.

I do love how you don't even bother with the fact that I mention the Gaurdian, which is OBJECTIVELY a worse version of the Huffington Post.

> You gave one example and it literally wasn't a parsable English sentence. So you gave zero examples.

T.D Adler, Ryulong, Carl Benjamin's page where he's accused of harassment despite direct video evidence proving to the contrary (again the secondary sources bias). The entire scientific journal on how the holocaust pages are biased in favor of forgetting polish crimes.

"One example"

> There it is. You don't like Wikipedia because it doesn't let you push your agenda

Brother I gave you fucking examples of actual human beings who did nothing wrong and got banned for it.

Get your head outside the board's behinds and see the truth of the matter that there is actual research into the bias of wikipedia and its overreliance of dubious quality secondary sources whose bias is well known to be genuinely awful.

The Guardian is not a news source that is at all neutral. Huffington Post is even worse. CNN and Fox News are decent. MSNBC is a shitshow with occasional news. So why the fuck are the first two even accepted as a reliable source? You don't fucking accept OANN, so why the fuck are the dumpster fires of the left wing accepted?

It's because you unironically cannot see your own bias.

> considering how much disinformation, brainwashing, and propaganda has been generated by the American right wing in the last decade

There's exactly one popular right wing news network in the United States, you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

> then it's quite easy to add whatever content you want, even if other editors don't like your content for whatever reason.

Ryulong only got banned after page squatting for quite some time and pissing off a gigantic amount of people.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939

Entire pages have been pagesquatted by people who have intrinsic bias about the incident since the people in question are unfavorable if the other side is true...

T.D Adler was banned for pointed out admin CoI.

Political Commentators are accused of harassment for being harassed on some pages.

If it isn't left-wing it's instantly overthrown from the reasonable scale if it's at all political.

> It's still really easy to edit Wikipedia, if you're actually being productive

The abundance of pagesquatting with admin support absolutely proves that this notion is counterfactual.