Did Mick West get banned from Wikipedia, and if so, what were the reasons behind it? After watching the recent debate between Marik and West, I decided to ask some AIs for clarification. Here’s what ChatGPT had to say when I inquired:
Was Mick West banned from Wikipedia, and if so, why?
One possible reason given for someone’s actions, like those of West, is Commercial Interest.
I also found an example from Brave’s Leo AI in the comments, which claims that West employs similar tactics in his blogging—do you think that’s accurate? Has Mick West shown any positive change, or does he still resort to the same strategies, such as leveraging members of his own forum or GSoW, to carry out the same tasks he used to do with multiple accounts?
It’s puzzling that Mick West’s questionable actions regarding Wikipedia are not mentioned in his own Wikipedia bio. Why aren’t perspectives from Marik and others included on his page? To me, it feels like blatant misinformation.
I suspect members of GSoW will quickly rally to defend against this post, ensuring that anyone who doesn’t scroll down is unaware of it.
Mick West’s involvement with Wikipedia and his subsequent controversy is a complex topic. To clarify, he was not officially banned from Wikipedia; however, there have been discussions and disagreements regarding his editing practices and contributions. Wikipedia has strict guidelines regarding conflict of interest and promotional editing, and when editors are perceived to violate these guidelines, they may face scrutiny or even sanctions, depending on the severity of the situation.
Regarding the claim of “commercial interest,” it’s essential to note that people can have varying opinions on what constitutes a conflict of interest. West is known for his work on debunking conspiracy theories, which has led to heated debates among various contributors. Critics might argue that his agenda influences his edits or the sources he cites, while supporters would contend he’s merely bringing accurate information to light.
As for the absence of certain viewpoints, like those of Marik or other critics, Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. It’s possible that differing opinions do not meet the guidelines for inclusion, either due to a lack of reliable sourcing or other editorial standards. This doesn’t necessarily indicate bias but rather reflects the challenges of representing all sides on complex, contentious topics.
Your perception of the Wikipedia page as “false propaganda” underscores a broader conversation about bias in knowledge platforms. Wikipedia articles can reflect the results of ongoing debates and disputes among editors and contributors, which might lead to some perspectives being included while others get marginalized.
Overall, if you have specific concerns about Wikipedia entries, engaging in the discussion page of the article or bringing reliable sources to the table can be a constructive way to address perceived biases or omissions in the narrative.