
Why does Google think the slowest animal is the sloth? - tedsanders
https://www.tedsanders.com/why-does-google-think-the-slowest-animal-is-the-sloth/
======
t0mmyb0y
Google serves the most popular answers, not the correct ones. Most search
piggybacks off google's advertising, so similar results.

------
ksaj
The last line is a bummer. It does prove the question asked, though.

~~~
mbo
Deletionism[0] is a plague on Wikipedia's culture. Time and time again have I
seen useful content deleted, because a moderator would rather purge something
not sufficiently high quality than expend the effort to actually fix it.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia)

~~~
cooper12
Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't have moderators, but admins. Their function is not
to moderate article content, but rather carry out technical duties like page
protection. They don't personally decide if an article should be fixed or
deleted. They close deletion discussions in which the editing community
reaches a consensus on whether an article meets Wikipedia's standards for
inclusion. This is not based on quality or usefulness, but rather notability.
[0] If you're dismayed at deletionism, I suggest participating in these
discussions and making arguments based in Wikipedia's policies and
demonstrating notability with sources. I do, and I've saved many articles in
the area I edit.

In this specific case, the article was proposed for deletion (a step behind a
deletion discussion) and no one opposed it. The reason wasn't just based on
quality issues, but also notability and original research. If you're
interested in improving the page, you can request undeletion. [1]

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability)

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Ob...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting)

