3 ms·

Basically every history article is heavily biased, just compare the different language versions.

gabbygab 8y ago
Pretty much every political or corporate sensitive topic has heavy bias. Even biology related topics are subject to external pressure from journalists, politicians and activists. There have been huge fights over how fetus, gender, sex, etc are defined on wikipedia. And it isn't just wikipedia, it's all of social media and pretty much all of the internet. From silly nonsense like movie reviews to serious matter like war footage, if it has political or financial impact, it is subject to heavy censorship and bias.
- umvi 8y ago
  Reminds me of when Bradley Manning's wiki page turned to Chelsea Manning within seconds of the announcement. It was unreal. It was like there were an army of activists ready to pounce as soon as the announcement was made and the article was quickly locked. I've seen other, more important, news take much longer to update (hours) on their main pages.
  - tim333 8y ago
    The way Wikipedia works you don't need an army of activists - just one enthusiast to edit it. The important news probably took longer because no one was very interested. That's how it works with volunteers.
  - andrepd 8y ago
    Running s/Bradley/Chelsea and s/he/she probably takes significantly less effort than writing on the latest news.
- tim333 8y ago
  Not just the internet but human culture throughout history basically.
- tivert 8y ago
  > Even biology related topics are subject to external pressure from journalists, politicians and activists. One of these things is not like the other...
Balgair 8y ago
And not just in the vein of the target language's politics. It's subtle, yet permissive. For example: if you look at Japanese history[0], many of the atrocities[1] that were committed in the lead up to WW2 are outright omitted, linked to with less frequency that you'd expect, or downplayed. At least, as far as I think they should be included. I'm not claiming to have a PhD in Japanese history, but I know a small bit about it, and it seems to me (and I can only speak for myself) that there is a distinct lack of 'bad' stuff about Japanese History in the English language Wikipedia. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Japanese_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Japanese_history [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Basically every history article is heavily biased This is true, and It's a problem, but it's not a particular problem of Wikipedia; it's pretty much true of history in general.
- adrianratnapala 8y ago
  And Wikipedia makes it relatively easy to do tricks like compare the different language versions.
umanwizard 8y ago
During the height of the recent Spanish constitutional crisis, the amount of difference (in content and tone) between the English, Spanish, and Catalan versions of the same pages was flabbergasting.

Pretty much every political or corporate sensitive topic has heavy bias. Even biology related topics are subject to external pressure from journalists, politicians and activists. There have been huge fights over how fetus, gender, sex, etc are defined on wikipedia. And it isn't just wikipedia, it's all of social media and pretty much all of the internet. From silly nonsense like movie reviews to serious matter like war footage, if it has political or financial impact, it is subject to heavy censorship and bias.

umvi 8y ago
Reminds me of when Bradley Manning's wiki page turned to Chelsea Manning within seconds of the announcement. It was unreal. It was like there were an army of activists ready to pounce as soon as the announcement was made and the article was quickly locked. I've seen other, more important, news take much longer to update (hours) on their main pages.
- tim333 8y ago
  The way Wikipedia works you don't need an army of activists - just one enthusiast to edit it. The important news probably took longer because no one was very interested. That's how it works with volunteers.
- andrepd 8y ago
  Running s/Bradley/Chelsea and s/he/she probably takes significantly less effort than writing on the latest news.
tim333 8y ago
Not just the internet but human culture throughout history basically.
tivert 8y ago
> Even biology related topics are subject to external pressure from journalists, politicians and activists. One of these things is not like the other...

Balgair 8y ago

And not just in the vein of the target language's politics. It's subtle, yet permissive. For example: if you look at Japanese history[0], many of the atrocities[1] that were committed in the lead up to WW2 are outright omitted, linked to with less frequency that you'd expect, or downplayed. At least, as far as I think they should be included. I'm not claiming to have a PhD in Japanese history, but I know a small bit about it, and it seems to me (and I can only speak for myself) that there is a distinct lack of 'bad' stuff about Japanese History in the English language Wikipedia. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Japanese_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Japanese_history [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Basically every history article is heavily biased This is true, and It's a problem, but it's not a particular problem of Wikipedia; it's pretty much true of history in general.

adrianratnapala 8y ago
And Wikipedia makes it relatively easy to do tricks like compare the different language versions.

umanwizard 8y ago

During the height of the recent Spanish constitutional crisis, the amount of difference (in content and tone) between the English, Spanish, and Catalan versions of the same pages was flabbergasting.