3 ms·

I don't know anything about the guy but the first few sentences normally summarize the article and that article has an entire section "Views on Jews" and "Third

by throwaway2016a 5y ago

I don't know anything about the guy but the first few sentences normally summarize the article and that article has an entire section "Views on Jews" and "Third Reich" so putting the antisemite in the first paragraph at least is not that far fetched. From a neutral, never before heard of this guy, point of view. Any more defensible examples?

KennyBlanken 5y ago
Yeah, that dude is deeeefinitely deserving of having antisemitism mentioned in the first sentence. My problem with Wikipedia is that some articles are fiercely gatekept by individuals who have clear bias and the community does little about it. A great example of this would be the Alcoholics Anonymous page. Any time someone tries to add information about the ineffectiveness of AA's all-or-nothing treatment of substance abuse, the abuse/harassment that goes on in groups, the documentary that revealed said abuse and harassment - one of a small handful of accounts, who rarely participate on any other page, immediately revert the edit with a gish-gallop of claimed wikipedia violations. Now, aside from the fact that reverting edits is supposed to be something of last resort - the reasons they cite for removing stuff strain credulity all the time. For example, they dismiss the documentary because it apparently wasn't screened in enough festivals and theatres. Which...might be a thing (it really isn't), if one were trying to cite it as a source...but you can't even mention the existence of the documentary, a demonstrable fact, without that being shot down as well due to the documentary not meeting their standards for a documentary. I believe they also cited a wikipedia rule that says that "both sides" type coverage of a subject needs to be proportionate to how mainstream/fringe each "side" is. So by their reasoning: because there aren't many people talking about the problems with AA, the AA article shouldn't have any mention of the problems with AA. They justify all this by claiming the AA is under "attack" and they are "defending" AA from the evil people (did I mention that AA is closely tied to Christianity?) Wikipedia is controlled by a very small number of people who use an exhaustive policy manual to justify whatever actions they want to take, defend viewpoints they like and attack those they don't. It's sort of like how US federal and state laws are extensive that just walking to your mailbox, you probably break some sort of law and could be detained by police for it. That's the core problem. Wikipedia isn't governed by the truth or fact, but by who knows the policy manual best.
- throwaway2016a 5y ago
  I'm just saying an example where the claim in the sentence is a summary of what is in the actual article may not be the best example of bias to use. Especially when the example is a philosopher and the thing being described is one of their philosophies.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > reverting edits is supposed to be something of last resort Not at all. The "BRD" policy puts reverting at the centre of the recommended approach to editing.
  - KennyBlanken 5y ago
    From the wikipedia policy page: > Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting It's bizarre that you think it "puts reverting at the center of the recommended approach to editing" when the policy specifically says it doesn't even encourage reverting.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      Which "policy page" were you referring to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guideli... doesn't mention reverting at all (rather surprisingly). IME, the majority of edits on WP seem to be reverts. I don't see much evidence of reverting being discouraged.
      - akolbe 5y ago
        That passage is from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus... It's an "explanatory supplement" to the Consensus policy. The problem with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is that arguably there are so many of them that you can almost always find one that says what you want it to say. :) And if not, WP:IAR will do the trick. That, too, is policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
lastbitwritten 5y ago
The article ‘list of right wing terrorist attacks exists’, but not one for left wing attacks. In fact the article was deleted… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=List_of_left-wing_terrorist_attacks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/del... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_right-wing_terrorist_attacks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_right-wing_terrorist...
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  If we're being fair, the deletion log mentions the exact reason: it wasn't an article that was deleted; it was a (cross-namespace) redirect. The actual article could've been some user's sandbox page or something. If a page is a sandbox (not complete), there shouldn't be redirects to it. When the page is complete enough, then it can be moved to the main namespace.
  - lastbitwritten 5y ago
    So the fact that a well maintained page exists for one and not the other isn’t a bias?
    - colejohnson66 5y ago
      Yes and no. It’s just that no one has bothered to make the page for one; you’re free to do so. Your accusation of deletion implies that there was a page that was deleted. That would be a bias, but it wasn’t the case. The page was a redirect that violated the rules. In other words, there’s a bias in the editors to not make it, but there’s no malicious bias that deleting an actual article would imply.
      - lastbitwritten 5y ago
        But look a little closer… Someone first moved it to userspace, causing it to become a redirect: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_left-wing_terrorist_attacks&action=edit&redlink=1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_left... Which then triggered it’s deletion.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

Yeah, that dude is deeeefinitely deserving of having antisemitism mentioned in the first sentence. My problem with Wikipedia is that some articles are fiercely gatekept by individuals who have clear bias and the community does little about it. A great example of this would be the Alcoholics Anonymous page. Any time someone tries to add information about the ineffectiveness of AA's all-or-nothing treatment of substance abuse, the abuse/harassment that goes on in groups, the documentary that revealed said abuse and harassment - one of a small handful of accounts, who rarely participate on any other page, immediately revert the edit with a gish-gallop of claimed wikipedia violations. Now, aside from the fact that reverting edits is supposed to be something of last resort - the reasons they cite for removing stuff strain credulity all the time. For example, they dismiss the documentary because it apparently wasn't screened in enough festivals and theatres. Which...might be a thing (it really isn't), if one were trying to cite it as a source...but you can't even mention the existence of the documentary, a demonstrable fact, without that being shot down as well due to the documentary not meeting their standards for a documentary. I believe they also cited a wikipedia rule that says that "both sides" type coverage of a subject needs to be proportionate to how mainstream/fringe each "side" is. So by their reasoning: because there aren't many people talking about the problems with AA, the AA article shouldn't have any mention of the problems with AA. They justify all this by claiming the AA is under "attack" and they are "defending" AA from the evil people (did I mention that AA is closely tied to Christianity?) Wikipedia is controlled by a very small number of people who use an exhaustive policy manual to justify whatever actions they want to take, defend viewpoints they like and attack those they don't. It's sort of like how US federal and state laws are extensive that just walking to your mailbox, you probably break some sort of law and could be detained by police for it. That's the core problem. Wikipedia isn't governed by the truth or fact, but by who knows the policy manual best.

throwaway2016a 5y ago
I'm just saying an example where the claim in the sentence is a summary of what is in the actual article may not be the best example of bias to use. Especially when the example is a philosopher and the thing being described is one of their philosophies.
denton-scratch 5y ago
> reverting edits is supposed to be something of last resort Not at all. The "BRD" policy puts reverting at the centre of the recommended approach to editing.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  From the wikipedia policy page: > Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting It's bizarre that you think it "puts reverting at the center of the recommended approach to editing" when the policy specifically says it doesn't even encourage reverting.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Which "policy page" were you referring to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guideli... doesn't mention reverting at all (rather surprisingly). IME, the majority of edits on WP seem to be reverts. I don't see much evidence of reverting being discouraged.
    - akolbe 5y ago
      That passage is from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus... It's an "explanatory supplement" to the Consensus policy. The problem with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is that arguably there are so many of them that you can almost always find one that says what you want it to say. :) And if not, WP:IAR will do the trick. That, too, is policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

lastbitwritten 5y ago

The article ‘list of right wing terrorist attacks exists’, but not one for left wing attacks. In fact the article was deleted… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=List_of_left-wing_terrorist_attacks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/del... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_right-wing_terrorist_attacks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_right-wing_terrorist...

colejohnson66 5y ago
If we're being fair, the deletion log mentions the exact reason: it wasn't an article that was deleted; it was a (cross-namespace) redirect. The actual article could've been some user's sandbox page or something. If a page is a sandbox (not complete), there shouldn't be redirects to it. When the page is complete enough, then it can be moved to the main namespace.
- lastbitwritten 5y ago
  So the fact that a well maintained page exists for one and not the other isn’t a bias?
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    Yes and no. It’s just that no one has bothered to make the page for one; you’re free to do so. Your accusation of deletion implies that there was a page that was deleted. That would be a bias, but it wasn’t the case. The page was a redirect that violated the rules. In other words, there’s a bias in the editors to not make it, but there’s no malicious bias that deleting an actual article would imply.
    - lastbitwritten 5y ago
      But look a little closer… Someone first moved it to userspace, causing it to become a redirect: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_left-wing_terrorist_attacks&action=edit&redlink=1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_left... Which then triggered it’s deletion.