Yes, editing Wikipedia is harder than it needs to be and you better have your Kevlar underwear on before venturing into hot potato topics, but there's a lot more to Wikipedia than that and contributions to more obscure/factual articles are generally more than welcome.
Despite this, the wikipedia articles remained entirely credulous of these accusations until only a few months ago. A couple editors suppressed any inclusion of exonerating information.
1. Taylor Lorenz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Lorenz
2. Christopher Rufo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Rufo
Both have had their fair share of controversies. However, you would never know it from reading the first second of Lorenz's article. In fact, much of the article focuses on the harassment she has received. Rufo's article doesn't have a section dedicated to the harassment he has received. (I don't know for a fact that he has, but I just expect him to have been the victim of some harassment based on his public position.) Lorentz's article does touch on some of her controversies, but the tone is totally different.
N.B. I don't know much about either person, I'm just noting that their articles have different tones which I suspect is for ideological reasons.
If I said "the justice system gives men harsher sentences than women for the same crime", I wouldn't necessarily have to know whether men should be given more lenient sentences or women should be given harsher sentences, if I only wanted to say that the current situation is unfair and something should change.
I think it's fine to put all of Rufo's controversial stuff at the beginning of his article, but they didn't do it for Lorenz, and I didn't see a plausible reason other than "they like Lorenz and don't like Rufo".
Do you also expect there are reliable secondary sources describing the harassment that you expect he’s received?
I have no ideas how Wikipedia could or should better handle these food fights. Ideas?
Kamala Harris and her case against Daniel Larsen.
https://www.splinter.com/kamala-harris-and-the-case-of-the-i...
https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-kee...
The case now only exists on the page of the California Innocence Project, and now has dead links to where it initially pointed to: Kamala's page.
(Before the Jan 2019 wipe)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamala_Harris&old...
https://web.archive.org/web/20190101103708/https://en.wikipe...
(Now: Daniel's case is now nearly non-existent, and has been memory-holed on both her main page, and her page as California A.G.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20240620214511/https://en.wikipe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris_as_Attorney_Gene...
Edit: it's been discussed before [1], I'm not sure why it's flagged
[0] https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40928248
... but? Really? After that first part of your sentence, you think there’s a “but”?
> contributions to more obscure/factual articles are generally more than welcome.
They are absolutely not. I stopped editing in the 2010s when it became clear that more and more of my contributions are just going to get reverted or deleted. Everyone I know personally feels the same way: contributing to Wikipedia is pointless because it all just gets deleted anyway. I don’t know anybody who thinks Wikipedia is a welcoming place, and the supposed goal to collect “the sum of all human knowledge” is a farce.
From your comment, it’s clear that you’re not experiencing this. Clearly you have adapted well to the rules, perhaps to the point where they have become second nature to you. That means it will become harder and harder for you to take a step back and think really deeply about the ways in which they hinder the project to collect “the sum of all human knowledge”.
And even if you think I'm wrong or can't be trusted - I suggest comparing the version of it now to the version of that same article a year ago. It is far less biased, as are many articles about Israel, reflecting a concerted effort to change Wikipedia to a different narrative, on this topic at least.