- Visit the wikipedia article for any controversial article
- Click ‘View history’
- Look for large reverts in bold red (which are not obvious vandalism)
- See what got removed
For example, the topic of sexual objectification is not exactly uncontroversial. And heterodox views are periodically censored out of its Wikipedia article by power users (senior and woke editors). The removal of views by Christina Hoff Sommers and Naomi Wolf on the subject is a good example. If you were just reading the latest version of the Wikipedia article, you would only get the censored version - but if you perused the page history and unearthed these deleted passages, you get to see a more comprehensive (i.e., umm … encyclopedic) view on it.
Here’s another example (one that I find more interesting) from the same article acting as an illustration of what I call ‘soft censorship’. Here, the editor censored out a bunch of entries from the ‘See also’ section, presumably because it goes contrary to the doctrine of objectification.
Finally, even neural seeming articles are “cleaned up” by politically motivated editors. An ealier version of the Schadenfreude article had a statement in the lead saying “adults also experience schadenfreude, although generally they conceal it” which got removed (an act of ‘soft censorship’) to the point that the article now reads — to present a more woke-approved version of the emotion — “Schadenfreude [..] may be an important social emotion establishing “inequity aversion”.”.