Until this writer attempted to Contribute to Wikipedia …and has someone else without a recognizable name ‘reverted’ [= deleted out] that work, most readers assumed that what is written there is believable.

And that information read there has some stability and confirm-ability. But authenticity and factuality is not that easy.

Attempts to update both “Pacifica” and “KPFK” pages kept being edited so strictly and maybe arbitrarily by those who say they have no special interests in either organization, that nothing stuck and remains on Wikipedia.

The last bit of slanted/ contributed by someone else/ information on “Pacifica” was a paragraph about “2002-2009” that was accepted then, but maybe would not be allowed now.

Wanting to be helpful, the “Mission” so valued and repeated by all at Pacifica and KPFK was also deleted out as an ‘infringement of copywrite’ even when the websites of these non-profits were clearly cited.

The sudden discovery is when an adolescent finds their parents are not what was believed for many childhood years – that they were strong, smart, shared information honestly and did their best for the family – and the children.

Wikipedia has established it’s own Reputation and Image as if this was a repository of genuine and valid information – easy to access, and neutrally written.

But NO. This was another false front that was not noted until a ‘contribution’ was attempted to inform and share more – updating more currently the actual happenings at both Pacifica and KPFK too.

This was a big waste of work and time as unknowable others with pseudo-names. That is discussed very briefly on their ‘talk’ pages – which are only seen by other contributors.

With all sorts of references about ‘reliability’ and who is an ‘reliable authority’ and what are valid “sources” - Wikipedia how-to links are there to back up any arbitrary and power-playing ‘reverts’ [deletions, edit outs]. These are easily done, repeatedly too, by those who do not know nor care about these topics – so they say.

Who is to know?

Written informative additions done with a neutral stance, and genuine good-will, and hard-work, efforts were made to write updates to what is now on their “Pacifica” and “KPFK” pages. The efforts were un-done.

All left on Wikipedia pages about the radio station and it’s overseer are very ancient writings of another long-ago era. “History” is incomplete and outdated.

Programs are not even listed or revised nor current. And the more HTML-know-how guys have deleted all updates with poor or no explanations.

“Stereorock”, is one who has been doing this same deletion to others, finally also admitted to another writer that he is “not an administrator nor moderator” at Wikipedia, but still acts as if he owns that store or it’s contents anyhow.

He won his case. No further updating efforts are being contributed and the lack of actual data, personnel, or helpful updated information remain elsewhere, instead.

The disappointment is to learn, by attempting to give and share, is that Wikipedia is not as neutral nor equalizing nor fair in what and who writes or shares there.

That there are many rules and policies necessary to prevent self promotions and attacks and mis-use of the site is accepted.

But when a person not already immersed in their ways does attempt to contribute actual, factual, current information, it is like a iron 181 foot rusted metal wall that must be climbed, as links and policies must all be memorized, and basically ‘no entry’ without being perfect, computer expert and HTML etc. handy.

Wikipedia was known to be a source of information, free to all and held to high standards.

” Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism” was noted here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

this may provide some hoped-for standards that can easily be lost when someone in real life is not just ‘reading’ but ‘writing’ with the hopes of real-ly Contributing.

But there seems to be many censors, others who want to run the show their way with policies used as excuses for their power-plays.

So whatever else is read about the radio stations we know about at Wikepedia are not as stated there and who knows who allowed those words to remain there anyhow ?

Who wanted to be dismayed by even Wikipedia being un-reliable and outdated and controlled by those whose egos are fiercer and more persistent ?
not we.