4 ms·

Originally wikipedia did not condone advocacy or propaganda now it does as long as it can be attributed as a "fact" because it has been published by a "reliable

Originally wikipedia did not condone advocacy or propaganda now it does as long as it can be attributed as a "fact" because it has been published by a "reliable source." Who decides what is a reliable source? The same sort of clique that moderates /r/worldnews or /r/politics. Reddit is an Orwellian cancer.

jefftk 5y ago
Wikipedia's policies on this are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability These are the same policies Wikipedia has had for over a decade, with only relatively minor changes. Are you saying they're being interpreted differently? Could you give an example?
- LegitShady 5y ago
  practice is how policy is applied, and wikipedia in practice is not the same as wikipedia policy by rote.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    Exactly. Policy is implemented by people. Eventually those who put extraordinary amount of time online will takeover editor/moderator positions and win editor wars. Most of those people are definitely not real experts in the field. Because real world experts wouldn't have time / motivation to engage in online fight.
  - jefftk 5y ago
    Can you give an example of how you see this changing?
    - morpheos137 5y ago
      For one thing all media sources should be on equal footing. Let the community decide what is bullshit. It is ridiculous that BBC is considered a reliable source but RT is not. Both have a specific point of view that they promote, reliably, Wikipedia is not supposed to have a point of view. If BBC is allowed but RT is banned then Wikipedia POV will tend toward BBC simply because a contrasting POV is censored. Same would hold for allowing an Israeli newspaper but banning an Iranian one as an unacceptable source. All media outlets should be on equal footing.
      - xg15 5y ago
        Bellingcat and Radio Free Europe are considered reliable sources, while Wikileaks is not...
        FreeSpeech 5y ago
        Bellingcat participated in a covert UK foreign-office funded program with the BBC to "weaken Russian": https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-office-russian-media/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of... Anyone suggesting Bellingcat is more reliable than Wikileaks is regurgitating establishment talking points.
        xg15 5y ago
        See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/P...
        FreeSpeech 5y ago
        Exactly. Perfectly demonstrates Wikipedia's western-centric, left-leaning tilt.
        dang 5y ago
        We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political/ideological battle. That's against the site guidelines because it destroys this place for its intended purpose—and for that reason, we ban accounts that do it, regardless of which politics/ideology they're battling for. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. Single-purpose accounts are not cool in general, because pre-existing agendas aren't sympatico with curiosity, which is the core value of this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Pilfer 5y ago
  Larry Sanger, who co-founded Wikipedia, provides many examples of how Wikipedia articles are heavily biased towards mainstream viewpoints. https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever/ https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-... > with only relatively minor changes Relatively minor changes have huge effect on the content of articles. The linked article also addresses how Wikipedia has banned conservative sources from Wikipedia including Fox News, the Daily Mail, and the New York Post. "In short, and with few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources—and sources friendly to globalist progressivism—are permitted." Every claim in a Wikipedia article must be accompanied with a source. Claims that are only covered by conservative media and not covered at all by mainstream (liberal) media, cannot be referenced as a source in a Wikipedia article. This leads to conservative viewpoints being removed from articles. Which directly causes articles to become biased towards mainstream viewpoints.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    In other words, facts that can only be cited to unreliable sources are not allowed in Wikipedia. That checks out.
    - Pilfer 5y ago
      That is not at all what I, nor the author, is claiming, and instead of retorting with a shallow dismissal I recommend you review the HN guidelines.

jefftk 5y ago

Wikipedia's policies on this are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability These are the same policies Wikipedia has had for over a decade, with only relatively minor changes. Are you saying they're being interpreted differently? Could you give an example?

LegitShady 5y ago
practice is how policy is applied, and wikipedia in practice is not the same as wikipedia policy by rote.
- temp8964 5y ago
  Exactly. Policy is implemented by people. Eventually those who put extraordinary amount of time online will takeover editor/moderator positions and win editor wars. Most of those people are definitely not real experts in the field. Because real world experts wouldn't have time / motivation to engage in online fight.
- jefftk 5y ago
  Can you give an example of how you see this changing?
  - morpheos137 5y ago
    For one thing all media sources should be on equal footing. Let the community decide what is bullshit. It is ridiculous that BBC is considered a reliable source but RT is not. Both have a specific point of view that they promote, reliably, Wikipedia is not supposed to have a point of view. If BBC is allowed but RT is banned then Wikipedia POV will tend toward BBC simply because a contrasting POV is censored. Same would hold for allowing an Israeli newspaper but banning an Iranian one as an unacceptable source. All media outlets should be on equal footing.
    - xg15 5y ago
      Bellingcat and Radio Free Europe are considered reliable sources, while Wikileaks is not...
      - FreeSpeech 5y ago
        Bellingcat participated in a covert UK foreign-office funded program with the BBC to "weaken Russian": https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-office-russian-media/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of... Anyone suggesting Bellingcat is more reliable than Wikileaks is regurgitating establishment talking points.
        xg15 5y ago
        See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/P...
        FreeSpeech 5y ago
        Exactly. Perfectly demonstrates Wikipedia's western-centric, left-leaning tilt.
        dang 5y ago
        We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political/ideological battle. That's against the site guidelines because it destroys this place for its intended purpose—and for that reason, we ban accounts that do it, regardless of which politics/ideology they're battling for. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. Single-purpose accounts are not cool in general, because pre-existing agendas aren't sympatico with curiosity, which is the core value of this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Pilfer 5y ago
Larry Sanger, who co-founded Wikipedia, provides many examples of how Wikipedia articles are heavily biased towards mainstream viewpoints. https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever/ https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-... > with only relatively minor changes Relatively minor changes have huge effect on the content of articles. The linked article also addresses how Wikipedia has banned conservative sources from Wikipedia including Fox News, the Daily Mail, and the New York Post. "In short, and with few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources—and sources friendly to globalist progressivism—are permitted." Every claim in a Wikipedia article must be accompanied with a source. Claims that are only covered by conservative media and not covered at all by mainstream (liberal) media, cannot be referenced as a source in a Wikipedia article. This leads to conservative viewpoints being removed from articles. Which directly causes articles to become biased towards mainstream viewpoints.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  In other words, facts that can only be cited to unreliable sources are not allowed in Wikipedia. That checks out.
  - Pilfer 5y ago
    That is not at all what I, nor the author, is claiming, and instead of retorting with a shallow dismissal I recommend you review the HN guidelines.