House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

Organized bias like creating a specific page to for a fictional syndrome in order to wave away any criticisms of your opponents. So organized that Wikipedia won’t remove the obvious bs:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome

One of the many reasons I don’t donate to Wikipedia. To keep this page up is to continue fueling unnecessary culture wars. Which in my opinion doesn’t align with their mission as it is not knowlege but an attack:

> Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge.

This page didn't create or popularize the term "Trump derangement syndrome".

I mean it is a "a pejorative term used to describe negative reactions to U.S. President Donald Trump..." How is having a page for that biased. And this is coming from some who has been described in the past (not anymore) of having TDS.

So? It maintains it the presence and unhealthy status quo. What is your point? I never declared it created the pejorative.

Negative reactions to a US president isn’t exclusive to Trump. Yet here is a page indicating that there is something special about a person not liking a US President named Trump.

Where is the Bush Derangement Syndrome? Where is the Biden Derangement Syndrome? Arguably this page owes everything to Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Wikipedia is not a source of original research or thinking. If prominent and reputable sources spoke about and coined these other terms there would be articles about them, or the article would be more generic.

Wikipedia exists in the context of the real world. All it does is reflect it. Deal with it.

I am dealing with it. I am informing people about the crap quality of content on Wikipedia. All I’m doing is reflecting the hypocrisy. You don’t like the fact that I can post my dissent online? Deal with it.

Bush Derangement Syndrome is covered (the writeup is linked to from the TDS article) but there is something special when republicans in multiple state legislatures have proposed _legislation_ on the subject of TDS, under that name, which would spend taxpayer money. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome#P...

For an even handed treatment, it should really include discussion of or a link to the propaganda technique of projection / accusation in a mirror, which is how that term came about to begin with. Derangement is a key element of Trump's support, because objectively none of his policies add up to any kind of effective plan, nor do they make sense in the context of American values of individual liberty. It's all just empty spectacle of look over here, you've been wronged, we're going to performatively attack the people who supposedly wronged you. By preemptively lashing out and gaslighting the actually-conservative group as "deranged" for merely reacting to the destruction, they obscure the obvious.

You haven’t informed anyone of any such thing. Wikipedia does not generate original concepts on purpose and you are complaining that an equivalent term exists for other presidents. Right now if Wikipedia was to create pages for those terms, _that_ would actually be bias as those terms aren’t widely used/don’t exist and would only be added to meet some people’s concept of “fairness” where if something bad happens to my side something bad has to happen to yours too

Edit: Also as someone else pointed out the page describes the origin of the term as evolving out of Bush Derangement syndrome being coined in 2003 and even comments on a Thatcher Derangement Syndrome phrase used after her death. The Trump Derangement Syndrome appears to be the main article because of the actual usage by government and in legislation

Should the dictionary not list slurs in them because they preserve an unhealthy status quo as well?

That article makes sure to mention that Trump derangement syndrome is a logical fallacy in the first paragraph. They aren't fueling culture wars by being an information source. I'm not sure where the bias would be coming from here with this article, and on which side and to whom...

But legitimizing stupid shit is a choice.

This is has to be ragebait by a pathetic troll. You haven't even read the first 4 lines of the page you've linked, where it refutes your argument that "this is specific to Trump". At least work a little on your clown material.

So then I should create Derangement Syndrome pages for every other Potus so we all may know and understand why you can and can’t criticize a Potus?

What knowledge does this page offer beyond indicating a cultural logical fallacy and listing a bunch of hypocrisy that can also be found on Trump’s main wikipedia page? What is so significantly different about TDS from Bush Derangement Syndrome that it needs it’s own page?

>Where is the Bush Derangement Syndrome? Where is the Biden Derangement Syndrome?

I'd say not everybody was paying attention at the time, but these syndromes defintely exist, it's just that no former President actually did what it takes to reach this level of regard.

All kinds of people agree that Trump can not be matched in a number of ways, conservatves, progressives, independents, whether they are deranged or not.

With any syndrome it does take a lot of consenus but eventually it's foolish to deny.

Every Presdient has it, some are just more prominent and widely recognized than others.

Edit: not my downvote BTW

I’m going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess that you have no issues with these wiki pages:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bu...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_con...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_religion_conspi...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_tan_suit_contro...