Wow, this is fascinating. An article, and several comments, from people who tried to use wikipedia to push minute social agendas in unrelated articles and found their entries removed! I’m actually doing research on the viability of wikipedia and this is a great exhibit for the idea that the evaluation policies are actually working.
Seriously? In an article about a motorcycle, you feel it was unfair that your personal opinions about Che weren’t deemed relevant? “OMG the guy that removed my conspiracy theory style footnotes was a German who protested the war. See how they’re all out to GET ME?”
I’ve had my bit of fun posting my political opinions in the articles of certain public figures. Some of the stuff I’ve posted could even be demonstrated objectively. I also know its not relevant to the nature of wikipedia. Wikipedia isn’t an op ed page, its a place for gathering the best consensus of actual facts we can accumulate. Trying to use it to promote personal agendas, especially ones that specific, belies the very nature of the product. Everything I’m reading here illustrates that wikipedia is probably working pretty well.
