4 ms·
To angry self: I dont entirely trust Wikipedia to give an objective/apolitical view of things all the time: there've been times where articles have been noticab
by asdffdsa 7y ago
To angry self: I dont entirely trust Wikipedia to give an objective/apolitical view of things all the time: there've been times where articles have been noticably influenced by a defacto, anachronistic political (progressive) position. I wouldnt mind having a redundant source of information where the possibility exists of current politics corrupting its articles' integrity
- AsyncAwait 7y ago> articles have been noticably influenced by a defacto, anachronistic political (progressive) position I hate it when the right pretends that everyone is biasing everything in terms of a progressive agenda, when that's just not the case, even in Wikipedia's case. There was the case of Cross doing absolutely right-wing, biased, pro right-wing Israeli governments entries and edits and being protected by Wikipedia editors to do so. I think what's often gets conflated is that munch of Western society and organizations are socially progressive, sure, but they're very much economically right-leaning, something that rarely gets acknowledged and which makes it difficult for me to have a honest conversation with the other side. I'd also note that Wikipedia's founder is very much right-leaning, regularly attacking the likes of Corbyn and certainly not holding progressive economics dear.
- asdffdsa 7y agoOk, my point still stands then; it's good to have multiple sources of information
- AsyncAwait 7y agoSure, I agree with that.
- Angostura 7y agoExamples?
- Retra 7y agoMany people have tried this, and they invariably end up creating propaganda cesspools like conservapedia. Progressivism fundamentally values objectivity, so I don't think you can easily exclude the former without also losing the later.