https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Pepsi+349&ns0=1&...
Edit: I stand corrected, there is a single paragraph in here. Nothing standalone/linkable though.
I could add stuff in my field of specialty constantly. I just don't want to jump through all the hoops that come with being a wikipedia contributor, so I keep all my notes on a private wiki.
Though I'd point out that unless wikipedia has a team of people whose expertise equals or at least vaguely approximates my own (or that of any expert that might contribute), I have to raise the question of whether that's really what they're filtering, or simply something that superficially looks like accuracy to someone unfamiliar with the material.
It also assumes that the inaccuracy of the current articles is less than the inaccuracy of articles under a hypothetical alternative moderation policy. That might be true, or it might not - chase away enough contributors and you're left with one-sided, stale information. I imagine that's fine for an article on the simpsons, but maybe not great if you're looking up leukemias.
I've tried contributing once or twice, and my work was erased like marks on the beach, promptly and without explanation. That was enough to ensure I don't do it again.
Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation
You would suppose a think tank directly responsible for such policy gems as :
• Mutually assured destruction
• The Missile Gap
• Planned Shrinkage
• tax cuts for the rich and service cuts for the poor
• Systematic Torture of enemy soldiers in the Vietnam war
• Deployment of Agent Orange
• Planned military coups of a number of third world nations
• Their employee (Daniel Ellsburg) leaked the pentagon papers
And all manner more of cold war controversies and excesses would be better covered, but any attempt to introduce them to the article are almost immediately cleaned from that page (check the edit history).
The history of the RAND corporation is documented, but you aren't going to find that information on Wikipedia.
There is very clearly a PR organization sitting on top of that article scrubbing and sterilizing all the dirty stuff RAND has been involved in.
I gave up then!
What?!? This is one of the stupider things I’ve heard from this community.
Not only do I find it very suspect that ‘everything has an article’, but these people are aware of new things being discovered and invented, no?
While it is an interesting story I don't really think it is the kind of thing I'd be looking for.
I can say Pepsi certainly doesn't want it there, your motivations are interely baffling though.
If someone upset that they (or more likely someone else) should have won a prize takes actions that lead to the death of another ... I don't believe Pepsi is responsible for that.