Kasz216 on 06 April 2009
| Final-Fan said: "Even if we went with your rosiest interpretation Wikipedia is guilty of intentionally misrepresentation, cherry picking and editing out valid changes to fix the situation." My "rosiest" interpretation is that Solomon's changes were hugely biased, changing parts of the article so that they were less clear (but sounded better for his POV) and got reverted. |
But what he said was factually true... unlike what was in the wikipedia article itself...
Even if it had a hint of bias in the writing... the correct stance would be to edit out the bias.
Not remove factual information to put back disinformation.
