6 ms·

Could you share an example of a biased article? I haven’t really noticed that (at least for the visible, high profile articles) - the coverage has been as balan

by lovecg 6y ago

Could you share an example of a biased article? I haven’t really noticed that (at least for the visible, high profile articles) - the coverage has been as balanced as anywhere. Where it might get “extreme” is on niche topics that few people care about. For example I remember some articles associated with the whole “audiophile” scene were claiming some silly things without much evidence behind them, but that’s pretty innocuous in my view.

throwawaysea 6y ago
One example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th..., which is about a term called "Cultural Marxism" which has been used by some mainstream right-leaning people as well as some right-leaning extremists (particularly in the past). If you look at the article itself, it titles this article as a "conspiracy theory" and specifically features the conspiracy theory version of "Cultural Marxism" in its opening sentences. However, the term as commonly used in modern times, does not refer to that particular conspiracy theory but is more like a shorthand for leftist ideology that features collectivism, particularly when it infiltrates academic institutions (and not the notion of a coordinated mass conspiracy). From a quick Google search, I was able to find other articles that draw this distinction clearly (example https://spectator.us/whats-wrong-cultural-marxism/ https://spectator.us/whats-wrong-cultural-marxism/). However, the Wikipedia article doesn't draw this distinction well, and it seems intent on casting the phrase "Cultural Marxism" as racist, and so it features the worst interpretation of it. It sources articles that are also written primarily to repudiate right-wing political figures or intellectuals like Jordan Peterson. The related debate and edit wars are apparent when you look at the "Talk" page for this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspira.... Note that the Talk page mentions the article is controversial, is in dispute, that there have been attempts to recruit editors to change the article, there have been circular sources introduced, and so forth. That's just one example, but if you dig deep enough into any topic that has a left- and right- perspective and a Wikipedia article, you'll find the same. Wikipedia is, in my view, developing a US-centric English-centric left-leaning bias. All that said, I still love Wikipedia and will continue to use it everyday. I just worry that like all human-centric institutions, it is itself a target, a theater of battle in the on-going ideological wars.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  The article about the conspiracy theory has a disambiguating note pointing to "Marxist cultural analysis" as a more common term for the non-conspiratorial use of "Cultural Marxism". The remaining question is whether the conspiratorial use is significant/common enough that it deserves to be treated as the "default", and that's an editorial question that could be argued from either side. It's an uncomfortable situation to be sure, but there's no blatant political bias here.
  - mattcwilson 6y ago
    Check the sources cited in this particular sentence: Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact and is not based on any actual intellectual tendency.[5][7]
    - zozbot234 6y ago
      I'm not sure what your point is. That sentence is entirely correct with reference to the conspiracy theory - there's no actual conspiracy or "intellectual tendency" to conspire along the posited lines. Marxist cultural analysis is a rather different animal; to be sure, there are genuinely weird interactions between it and e.g. radical Maoist politics/worldviews which push some proponents of either towards an ideological extreme that's somewhat reminiscent of the 'Cultural Marxist' claims ("Destroy the Four Olds!") - but even then, that's a random/contingent political equilibrium; not a willful conspiracy or even a well-defined "intellectual tendency".
      - tgv 6y ago
        I think the point is that these articles don't prove anything of the kind. The first one "examines the ways in which Cultural Marxism has moved from the ‘fringe’ to the ‘mainstream’", paying "particular attention to the localised use of the conspiracy in the ‘Safe Schools’ controversy of 2016–2017, whereby Cultural Marxist tropes were imbued with local concerns about sexuality and gender issues". The second one "argues that “Cultural Marxism” is an antisemitic conspiracy theory", focusing "on three of the main proponents", and shows that it "misrepresents the Frankfurt School’s ideas and influence", the latter not being obvious from a quick reading.
mattcwilson 6y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting
- elliotec 6y ago
  What about this article is biased?
  - tgv 6y ago
    I cannot judge if it's biased (in the way meant in this thread), but there is a rather weird statement right in the first section, "Factors that affect decisions": > In psychology, the parental investment theory suggests that basic differences between males and females in parental investment have great adaptive significance and lead to gender differences in mating propensities and preferences.[10] First, the reference is to a text book. That's not good. Second, the theory is not not widely accepted, and did receive criticism. It's certainly not an established fact. Third, the statement's prominent place, and lack of further qualification, suggests that human parents should take care of the amount care men and women invest in parenting, but that's not at all what the theory is about. The article linked explains that very clearly. Why it was placed there is a mystery, but it's not been a neutral, well-informed edit.
    - hobofan 6y ago
      > Second, the theory is not not widely accepted, and did receive criticism. Then contribute a link to that criticism? AFAIK that's the normal policy on widely criticized statements that are still popular enough that they should be mentioned.

by lovecg 6y ago

throwawaysea 6y ago

One example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th..., which is about a term called "Cultural Marxism" which has been used by some mainstream right-leaning people as well as some right-leaning extremists (particularly in the past). If you look at the article itself, it titles this article as a "conspiracy theory" and specifically features the conspiracy theory version of "Cultural Marxism" in its opening sentences. However, the term as commonly used in modern times, does not refer to that particular conspiracy theory but is more like a shorthand for leftist ideology that features collectivism, particularly when it infiltrates academic institutions (and not the notion of a coordinated mass conspiracy). From a quick Google search, I was able to find other articles that draw this distinction clearly (example https://spectator.us/whats-wrong-cultural-marxism/ https://spectator.us/whats-wrong-cultural-marxism/). However, the Wikipedia article doesn't draw this distinction well, and it seems intent on casting the phrase "Cultural Marxism" as racist, and so it features the worst interpretation of it. It sources articles that are also written primarily to repudiate right-wing political figures or intellectuals like Jordan Peterson. The related debate and edit wars are apparent when you look at the "Talk" page for this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspira.... Note that the Talk page mentions the article is controversial, is in dispute, that there have been attempts to recruit editors to change the article, there have been circular sources introduced, and so forth. That's just one example, but if you dig deep enough into any topic that has a left- and right- perspective and a Wikipedia article, you'll find the same. Wikipedia is, in my view, developing a US-centric English-centric left-leaning bias. All that said, I still love Wikipedia and will continue to use it everyday. I just worry that like all human-centric institutions, it is itself a target, a theater of battle in the on-going ideological wars.

zozbot234 6y ago
The article about the conspiracy theory has a disambiguating note pointing to "Marxist cultural analysis" as a more common term for the non-conspiratorial use of "Cultural Marxism". The remaining question is whether the conspiratorial use is significant/common enough that it deserves to be treated as the "default", and that's an editorial question that could be argued from either side. It's an uncomfortable situation to be sure, but there's no blatant political bias here.
- mattcwilson 6y ago
  Check the sources cited in this particular sentence: Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact and is not based on any actual intellectual tendency.[5][7]
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is. That sentence is entirely correct with reference to the conspiracy theory - there's no actual conspiracy or "intellectual tendency" to conspire along the posited lines. Marxist cultural analysis is a rather different animal; to be sure, there are genuinely weird interactions between it and e.g. radical Maoist politics/worldviews which push some proponents of either towards an ideological extreme that's somewhat reminiscent of the 'Cultural Marxist' claims ("Destroy the Four Olds!") - but even then, that's a random/contingent political equilibrium; not a willful conspiracy or even a well-defined "intellectual tendency".
    - tgv 6y ago
      I think the point is that these articles don't prove anything of the kind. The first one "examines the ways in which Cultural Marxism has moved from the ‘fringe’ to the ‘mainstream’", paying "particular attention to the localised use of the conspiracy in the ‘Safe Schools’ controversy of 2016–2017, whereby Cultural Marxist tropes were imbued with local concerns about sexuality and gender issues". The second one "argues that “Cultural Marxism” is an antisemitic conspiracy theory", focusing "on three of the main proponents", and shows that it "misrepresents the Frankfurt School’s ideas and influence", the latter not being obvious from a quick reading.

mattcwilson 6y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting

elliotec 6y ago
What about this article is biased?
- tgv 6y ago
  I cannot judge if it's biased (in the way meant in this thread), but there is a rather weird statement right in the first section, "Factors that affect decisions": > In psychology, the parental investment theory suggests that basic differences between males and females in parental investment have great adaptive significance and lead to gender differences in mating propensities and preferences.[10] First, the reference is to a text book. That's not good. Second, the theory is not not widely accepted, and did receive criticism. It's certainly not an established fact. Third, the statement's prominent place, and lack of further qualification, suggests that human parents should take care of the amount care men and women invest in parenting, but that's not at all what the theory is about. The article linked explains that very clearly. Why it was placed there is a mystery, but it's not been a neutral, well-informed edit.
  - hobofan 6y ago
    > Second, the theory is not not widely accepted, and did receive criticism. Then contribute a link to that criticism? AFAIK that's the normal policy on widely criticized statements that are still popular enough that they should be mentioned.