5 ms·

> It also disallows introducing bias in articles on purpose Wikipedia already requires a Neutral Point-of-View as one of its' five pillars [1]. So this policy

by toomim 6y ago

> It also disallows introducing bias in articles on purpose Wikipedia already requires a Neutral Point-of-View as one of its' five pillars [1]. So this policy doesn't affect the content of articles, but it does ban editors who say something that disagrees with an admin's bias, before the editor get a chance to respond e.g. by citing reliable sources that argue their case. Wikipedia editors and admins are already biased towards the far-left [2]. I'm a liberal, and I've seen them routinely wipe away conservative viewpoints, slander conservatives, and ban people who seem to support conservative views. But today, a ban only happens when editors can see a conservative breaking some other rule, such as "edit warring", which they will raise to admins, who will examine the complaint and block the conservative's account. This takes a lot of work. But now the wiki-activists can ban conservatives just for saying something conservative, which is what they've really wanted to do all along. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars [2] https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

seneca 6y ago
> But now the wiki-activists can ban conservatives just for saying something conservative, which is what they've really wanted to do all along. Exactly. This is always the point of CoCs that punish offsite behavior and include "hate speech" and such as an offense. The language is always humpty-dumptying and a preemptive mott-and-bailey. Say you're banning "harassment and hate speech", then in the future claim that "a machine can not make a sneetch into a star-bellied-sneetch" makes you feel unsafe and magically you've created ideological homogeneity. The intent it to make sure you're not allowed to speak views that oppose the orthodoxy and still exist online.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
“neutral point of view” is a ridiculous idea to profess to be able to have. Any man who stakes such a claim is deeply biased without realizing it. The crux is that it be proportionally featured in what are considered “reliable sources”, but Wikipedia has no definition of what makes a source “reliable”. The other issue, of course, is that this U.S.A. “left vs. right” debate is often considered as though the U.S.A. be the only place in the world. The reality is of course that most continental Europeans will say that both the “left” and the “right” in the U.S.A. are very much “right” in their opinion, but they more so speak fiscally, rather than socially about these matters. “left” vs “right” in U.S.A. parlance seem to mostly refer to whose cause one arbitrarily champions in social identity politics, both having a rather similar, hignly right wing capitalist fiscal platform. English-language Wikipedia is of course also heavily biased towards Anglo-Saxon sources as one expects, but it does not report it as such. Very often in reviews of media it says that something was “critically acclaimed” when it only was among Anglo-Saxon criticism. And finally, when the entire world be considered, rather than merely the developed world, the situation becomes even more complicated. — English-language Wikipedia definitely does not repræsent neutrality with respect to the entire world, and does not attempt to do so, nor wishes to do so.
- toomim 6y ago
  > Wikipedia has no definition of what makes a source “reliable”. Yes it does. Here's the definition of "reliable source": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    None of this defines what source is reliable and what source not. What it does do is list some properties that do not immediately disqualify a source from being reliable, and what makes a source automatically unreliable, but that's it. All other definitions are circular, in the vein of Academic research is reliable, if it be published in a reliable, reputable journal..

by toomim 6y ago

seneca 6y ago

> But now the wiki-activists can ban conservatives just for saying something conservative, which is what they've really wanted to do all along. Exactly. This is always the point of CoCs that punish offsite behavior and include "hate speech" and such as an offense. The language is always humpty-dumptying and a preemptive mott-and-bailey. Say you're banning "harassment and hate speech", then in the future claim that "a machine can not make a sneetch into a star-bellied-sneetch" makes you feel unsafe and magically you've created ideological homogeneity. The intent it to make sure you're not allowed to speak views that oppose the orthodoxy and still exist online.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

“neutral point of view” is a ridiculous idea to profess to be able to have. Any man who stakes such a claim is deeply biased without realizing it. The crux is that it be proportionally featured in what are considered “reliable sources”, but Wikipedia has no definition of what makes a source “reliable”. The other issue, of course, is that this U.S.A. “left vs. right” debate is often considered as though the U.S.A. be the only place in the world. The reality is of course that most continental Europeans will say that both the “left” and the “right” in the U.S.A. are very much “right” in their opinion, but they more so speak fiscally, rather than socially about these matters. “left” vs “right” in U.S.A. parlance seem to mostly refer to whose cause one arbitrarily champions in social identity politics, both having a rather similar, hignly right wing capitalist fiscal platform. English-language Wikipedia is of course also heavily biased towards Anglo-Saxon sources as one expects, but it does not report it as such. Very often in reviews of media it says that something was “critically acclaimed” when it only was among Anglo-Saxon criticism. And finally, when the entire world be considered, rather than merely the developed world, the situation becomes even more complicated. — English-language Wikipedia definitely does not repræsent neutrality with respect to the entire world, and does not attempt to do so, nor wishes to do so.

toomim 6y ago
> Wikipedia has no definition of what makes a source “reliable”. Yes it does. Here's the definition of "reliable source": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  None of this defines what source is reliable and what source not. What it does do is list some properties that do not immediately disqualify a source from being reliable, and what makes a source automatically unreliable, but that's it. All other definitions are circular, in the vein of Academic research is reliable, if it be published in a reliable, reputable journal..