If that's the bed you make,
can wikipedia make the same bed?
Or does their neutral position preclude them of such liberties?
Circling back to the wikipedia article, we live in a world where the media (and a vast majority) doesn't agree with the content gab hosted.
The wikipedia opening is in regards to epik taking action, or inaction, in regards to sites like gab, or some of the drug websites they were/are sponsoring/enabling/housing....
If we lived in a world, where the media wrote more about gab in positive light, in a world where the vast majority agrees with the housing of gab, the wikipedia article might have other sources to cite suggesting a different narrative.
We also live in different worldly times. We are past the times of the cold war.
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation. Why bring it to namePros? Might it be time to evolve?
Find sources. Try to cite those. There are rules.not just wikipedia rules, Be it nP rules or even ICANN rules, though after watching the .O fiasco, and lack of disclaimers at .o checkout, I'm not entirely sure how ICANN enforcement works or the legal signoffs that would have had to happen to allow such a fiasco. Regardless, be it nP, Wikipedia, or ICANN, each have their respective processes / policies.
Or better yet, if epik were to start more positive missions, and take less of a focus on conspiracies, grandstanding, self-promoting, and started upholding ethics, or uplifting others, than maybe the media will take note. And epik will be known for other things. Until then, we live in the world we live in.