5 ms·

Wikipedia became a battleground for racial justice

35 points by edward 6y ago

cannedslime 6y ago
Wikipedia has sadly been in this state of subversion for years. Eventually you get a mental bullshit-filter, just like you easily train yourself to ignore ads online etc.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Sadly yes and it is very counter productive from my perspective. It is no secret that there are some groups that just blame people on their skin color or sex or whatever else. They have been there since the dawn of the internet. But recently they seem to be holding a lot of people in some kind of mental prison. I wouldn't even want to read an article about Floyd because it won't net me believable information. I will just say that he was a victim of state violence. That is more severe than violence between any groups and everyone in a society is responsible to a degree and that social media or the internet in general is a bad place for reverence.
sam_goody 6y ago
This morning, I chanced upon the wiki page for "George Floyd protests". I consider myself more liberal than many, and yet I was struck by the obvious left slant of that page. Not that it has inaccuracies, but its selection of facts and how they are presented, are definitely not neutral. From the header ("protests" or "riots"?) to the prevalence ("George Floyd protests in Minnesota"[0] and "George Floyd protests"[1], etc[2], [3], [4], [5] ...) to the descriptions and topics.... IMO such bias erodes their trust, and the more centrist will have to choose between one echo chamber and another and decide their facts by emotion. Unfortunately, I am beginning to feel that the more "woke" a subject is, the less likely the facts will be presented fairly. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Twin_Cities_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Twin_Cities_riots [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_outside_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_...
- belly_joe 6y ago
  I've noticed this as well. Reminds me of this from Scott Alexander: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...
- mdpye 6y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your point. By questioning the choice of "protests" vs "riots", are you suggesting that the actions taken by a minority of those participating should be used as the header for the whole article? Because that would seem to be a much more biased way to record the events.
  - sam_goody 6y ago
    Per that one example. The URL of the article being linked to was "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Twin_Cities_riots" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Twin_Cities_riots" (it has now been changed). Compare the two: "Twin Cities whatever" used in the URL is a lot less political than "Goerge Floyd whatever". And the "riots" used in the URL is obviously something people were searching Google for. Wikipedia could have used the more conservative name, and acknowledged that "the protests, also known as the "George Floyd Riots" (as is obvious from the URL).... Don't get fixated on that example though - the whole article reads like it was written by the press team of a large corporation with a narrative to sell.
    - htfu 6y ago
      The current name of the article is "George Floyd protests in Minnesota", and first paragraph contains "The course of events in Minnesota has also been referred to as the Minneapolis riots". I disagree riots is a more conservative name - this would imply an article solely about the riots, necessiting an additional article about the protests, one which, being written in a way as to minimize overlap, would probably be accused of downplaying the very much existing riots. Or at the very least balkanize coverage.
tompagenet2 6y ago
I get that Jimmy Wales acted questionably towards Larry Sanger, but I'm always a little saddened that Sanger has become a rent-a-quote to criticise something truly amazing that he helped to create. Wikipedia is for all its flaws a remarkable achievement.
- adventured 6y ago
  Sanger, from what I've read of what he has been saying, doesn't appear to deny the remarkable achivement of Wikipedia. He's arguing it is increasingly losing a sense of - a culture of - neutrality that helped to make Wikipedia possible.
historyremade 6y ago
Pikiwedia sounds better than Wikipedia.
dmonitor 6y ago
I don’t think the ambiguity of the notability requirement should be used as a critique of the neutrality policy.
Darmody 6y ago
Maybe Wikipedia shouldn't allow certain articles to be added/edited until things cool off a bit. Writing history out of anger is probably not the best idea.
- playpause 6y ago
  They do that. Articles are often locked to a certain level (e.g. closed for edits from new users, or even all users) for a certain period of time if they relate to a controversial topic or unfolding news event.
sradman 6y ago
That is an unexpectedly balanced and informative piece from Slate. There are two main assumptions underlying progressive politics: systemic oppression and exploitation. Social Justice Activism takes these assumptions to be true by default. Anti-capitalist Black Bloc anarchists, for instance, take any opportunity to destroy corporate property as a positive move to eliminate economic exploitation. They don’t tend to revisit their assumptions. Bypassing due process and the presumption of innocence does not promote justice. Perhaps news stories should include subscription links to be notified of the key due process events associated with the criminal investigation. I would hope that thoughtful protest could be patiently delayed until due process is complete.
Thorentis 6y ago
Unsurprisingly, this doesn't seem to be a left vs. right issue but a far left vs. centre issue. None of the edit suggestions or controversies were racist or biased. It is clear that ardent supporters of the BLM movement simply want to shape the historical record in the way they want to. And Wikipedia will probably side with them. How is mentioning Floyd's past criminal record on his biographical page (not even on the "Killing of..." page) a detraction from his death? Are we just going to edit Wikipedia to remove anything that detracts from people we idolise? Wikipedia should present the facts (all of them) and that is it. If the facts detract, then maybe there's a reason for that. That doesn't change the fact that they are facts.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  This has been happening for a while. There were posts on HN about the revision wars around the Orlando shooting, and then again on almost every major world event. When it comes to political events, you cannot take Wikipedia as a reliable source anymore. The sad fact is that the people who have the most time to give to wikipedia, are typically the most biased.
- htfu 6y ago
  If you look at the linked talk page almost all votes are yes, include. It is currently included. You appear to be railing not against what is, but against an unrealized possibility which was in fact stopped by the very hive-mind you falsely assume would push, or at least accept it. Call me slanted all you want, but this, the current state of comments here, that's what an agenda looks like.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    I was basing my comments on the linked Slate article.
    - htfu 6y ago
      And the link I referred to is in that article.
- deleted 6y ago
trabant00 6y ago
Unfortunately it's been years since I can trust any wikipedia article on anything political or social related. Sad thing is these issues now taint topics like games, movies, software. Not being from US makes it even harder to swallow. I guess it's unavoidable though. Having your ideological group stand on such a popular resource is incredibly powerful propaganda. It's like having millions of dollars lying in the street, you can't expect people not to touch it.
- jl2718 6y ago
  I’m of the opinion that it’s not just ‘like’ money. It is money. Firstly, there are people from ‘community organizations’ that get paid to AstroTurf as their full time job. Secondly, those organizations wouldn’t get funding in the first place if some big company didn’t somehow depend on their political action to maintain their profits.
RickJWagner 6y ago
For the love of all this good, please do not let the poison of political correctness infect Wikipedia.
- nathanaldensr 6y ago
  You think Wikipedia isn't already poisoned? I have sad news for you, my friend...

35 points by edward 6y ago

Wikipedia has sadly been in this state of subversion for years. Eventually you get a mental bullshit-filter, just like you easily train yourself to ignore ads online etc.

raxxorrax 6y ago
Sadly yes and it is very counter productive from my perspective. It is no secret that there are some groups that just blame people on their skin color or sex or whatever else. They have been there since the dawn of the internet. But recently they seem to be holding a lot of people in some kind of mental prison. I wouldn't even want to read an article about Floyd because it won't net me believable information. I will just say that he was a victim of state violence. That is more severe than violence between any groups and everyone in a society is responsible to a degree and that social media or the internet in general is a bad place for reverence.

sam_goody 6y ago

This morning, I chanced upon the wiki page for "George Floyd protests". I consider myself more liberal than many, and yet I was struck by the obvious left slant of that page. Not that it has inaccuracies, but its selection of facts and how they are presented, are definitely not neutral. From the header ("protests" or "riots"?) to the prevalence ("George Floyd protests in Minnesota"[0] and "George Floyd protests"[1], etc[2], [3], [4], [5] ...) to the descriptions and topics.... IMO such bias erodes their trust, and the more centrist will have to choose between one echo chamber and another and decide their facts by emotion. Unfortunately, I am beginning to feel that the more "woke" a subject is, the less likely the facts will be presented fairly. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Twin_Cities_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Twin_Cities_riots [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_outside_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_...

belly_joe 6y ago
I've noticed this as well. Reminds me of this from Scott Alexander: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...
mdpye 6y ago
I'm not sure I understand your point. By questioning the choice of "protests" vs "riots", are you suggesting that the actions taken by a minority of those participating should be used as the header for the whole article? Because that would seem to be a much more biased way to record the events.
- sam_goody 6y ago
  Per that one example. The URL of the article being linked to was "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Twin_Cities_riots" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Twin_Cities_riots" (it has now been changed). Compare the two: "Twin Cities whatever" used in the URL is a lot less political than "Goerge Floyd whatever". And the "riots" used in the URL is obviously something people were searching Google for. Wikipedia could have used the more conservative name, and acknowledged that "the protests, also known as the "George Floyd Riots" (as is obvious from the URL).... Don't get fixated on that example though - the whole article reads like it was written by the press team of a large corporation with a narrative to sell.
  - htfu 6y ago
    The current name of the article is "George Floyd protests in Minnesota", and first paragraph contains "The course of events in Minnesota has also been referred to as the Minneapolis riots". I disagree riots is a more conservative name - this would imply an article solely about the riots, necessiting an additional article about the protests, one which, being written in a way as to minimize overlap, would probably be accused of downplaying the very much existing riots. Or at the very least balkanize coverage.

tompagenet2 6y ago

I get that Jimmy Wales acted questionably towards Larry Sanger, but I'm always a little saddened that Sanger has become a rent-a-quote to criticise something truly amazing that he helped to create. Wikipedia is for all its flaws a remarkable achievement.

adventured 6y ago
Sanger, from what I've read of what he has been saying, doesn't appear to deny the remarkable achivement of Wikipedia. He's arguing it is increasingly losing a sense of - a culture of - neutrality that helped to make Wikipedia possible.

historyremade 6y ago

Pikiwedia sounds better than Wikipedia.

dmonitor 6y ago

I don’t think the ambiguity of the notability requirement should be used as a critique of the neutrality policy.

Darmody 6y ago

Maybe Wikipedia shouldn't allow certain articles to be added/edited until things cool off a bit. Writing history out of anger is probably not the best idea.

playpause 6y ago
They do that. Articles are often locked to a certain level (e.g. closed for edits from new users, or even all users) for a certain period of time if they relate to a controversial topic or unfolding news event.

sradman 6y ago

That is an unexpectedly balanced and informative piece from Slate. There are two main assumptions underlying progressive politics: systemic oppression and exploitation. Social Justice Activism takes these assumptions to be true by default. Anti-capitalist Black Bloc anarchists, for instance, take any opportunity to destroy corporate property as a positive move to eliminate economic exploitation. They don’t tend to revisit their assumptions. Bypassing due process and the presumption of innocence does not promote justice. Perhaps news stories should include subscription links to be notified of the key due process events associated with the criminal investigation. I would hope that thoughtful protest could be patiently delayed until due process is complete.

Thorentis 6y ago

Unsurprisingly, this doesn't seem to be a left vs. right issue but a far left vs. centre issue. None of the edit suggestions or controversies were racist or biased. It is clear that ardent supporters of the BLM movement simply want to shape the historical record in the way they want to. And Wikipedia will probably side with them. How is mentioning Floyd's past criminal record on his biographical page (not even on the "Killing of..." page) a detraction from his death? Are we just going to edit Wikipedia to remove anything that detracts from people we idolise? Wikipedia should present the facts (all of them) and that is it. If the facts detract, then maybe there's a reason for that. That doesn't change the fact that they are facts.

koheripbal 6y ago
This has been happening for a while. There were posts on HN about the revision wars around the Orlando shooting, and then again on almost every major world event. When it comes to political events, you cannot take Wikipedia as a reliable source anymore. The sad fact is that the people who have the most time to give to wikipedia, are typically the most biased.
htfu 6y ago
If you look at the linked talk page almost all votes are yes, include. It is currently included. You appear to be railing not against what is, but against an unrealized possibility which was in fact stopped by the very hive-mind you falsely assume would push, or at least accept it. Call me slanted all you want, but this, the current state of comments here, that's what an agenda looks like.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  I was basing my comments on the linked Slate article.
  - htfu 6y ago
    And the link I referred to is in that article.
deleted 6y ago

trabant00 6y ago

Unfortunately it's been years since I can trust any wikipedia article on anything political or social related. Sad thing is these issues now taint topics like games, movies, software. Not being from US makes it even harder to swallow. I guess it's unavoidable though. Having your ideological group stand on such a popular resource is incredibly powerful propaganda. It's like having millions of dollars lying in the street, you can't expect people not to touch it.

jl2718 6y ago
I’m of the opinion that it’s not just ‘like’ money. It is money. Firstly, there are people from ‘community organizations’ that get paid to AstroTurf as their full time job. Secondly, those organizations wouldn’t get funding in the first place if some big company didn’t somehow depend on their political action to maintain their profits.

RickJWagner 6y ago

For the love of all this good, please do not let the poison of political correctness infect Wikipedia.

nathanaldensr 6y ago
You think Wikipedia isn't already poisoned? I have sad news for you, my friend...