3 ms·
I mean this post is literally it. Look at the talk page of literally any remotely politicized article and you will see a consistent, massive power imbalance in
by twofornone 5y ago
I mean this post is literally it. Look at the talk page of literally any remotely politicized article and you will see a consistent, massive power imbalance in one direction, enforced with implicit conflations like the one you're making with your reference to dog whistling.
Given the wide range of policies on which the American left and right differ, "perspective" is an appropriate and unloaded term.
Perhaps you are offended my gall to suggest that we treat right and left leaning perspectives on equal footing, but there is no deception on my part here. There is far more to "right of center" than racism and so called whiteness, but reading from "authoritative" institutions like wikipedia, you'd never know it. And that's entirely due to bullying and bias from entrenched activist editors. It's telling that what is excluded under the guise of "trolling" almost exclusively leans in one direction.
It's not just wikipedia and it is disenfranchisement, to the degree that recent polls suggest approximately a majority of republicans and something like 35% of democrats are supposedly starting to look at balkanization/secession favorably. Is this really the path you want to go down?
- tesselator 5y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration went though this. It's early version were hugely biased, and I was disappointed to see this on Wikipedia. The talk page had the imbalance you describe. Over time, however, this article has become more objective. This gained me respect for the checks and balances within Wikipedia. Update: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1049258883 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/104925888... is a recent unfair change.