3 ms·

I used to give to Wikipedia but stopped when I discovered that they were claiming that The Grayzone / Moderate Rebels were a special fourth category of untruste

I used to give to Wikipedia but stopped when I discovered that they were claiming that The Grayzone / Moderate Rebels were a special fourth category of untrusted in their three tier system of source ranking. I still like and use it, but that smacks of an especially sneaky variant of censorship. The Grayzone / Moderate Rebels definitely take an independent, outsider slant on important stories with an upfront, stated intent of being anti-imperialist, but they do not fabricate stories. That makes them a superior source to the NYT (let's invade Iraq) or any of the CNN, MSNBC outlets pushing anti-Russia and anti-China hysteria. Wikipedia is too useful and important to be left in the hands of people with marked political biases.

frabbit 5y ago
These are the specific accusations from the Grayzone: https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/ https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censor...
- akolbe 5y ago
  I thought the Grayzone ban was interesting too. There is always the option of leaving it up to editors, and/or explicitly attributing any opinions or fact claims so the reader can see where they come from. However, I wonder how much the Wikimedia Foundation as the solicitor and recipient of reader donations has to do with it. For all its faults, the Wikimedia Foundation does not edit Wikipedia directly (its own article, i.e. the Wikipedia article on the Wikimedia Foundation, is crap for example, because they won't edit it and nobody else really cares to). So a decision like banning Grayzone is down to the volunteer editors that congregate around a topic area rather than the Foundation. (Grayzone is a curious case because the Blumenthal family has close links to the Clintons, and so does the Wikimedia Foundation, because some of the consultancy firms listed as major suppliers in their Forms 990 (Williamsworks, Minassian Media and Trilogy Interactive) are run by people with close personal ties to the Clintons.)
zozbot234 5y ago
Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per... "The Grayzone was deprecated in the 2020 RfC. There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information. Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight. " I.e. it's "banned" for the same reason the Daily Mail is "banned".
- frabbit 5y ago
  That is exactly what is under dispute and it is un-sourced and worded very loosely. Not impressive for an organization that encourages citations of original source material.
patrick451 5y ago
I also stopped giving to wikipedia when it become clear they had become a political fifth column.
theon144 5y ago
AIUI the decision was made via standard procedure (a Request for Comments sub-page), and it was the consensus of the editors (that is, the ominous "they" in your comment) that it is unreliable as a source. Now there is an obvious need for quality control of accepted sources in a project like Wikipedia, the process was transparent, and its conclusion is up for debate (hence being conducted through a Request for Comments). What would you propose instead?

frabbit 5y ago

These are the specific accusations from the Grayzone: https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/ https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censor...

akolbe 5y ago
I thought the Grayzone ban was interesting too. There is always the option of leaving it up to editors, and/or explicitly attributing any opinions or fact claims so the reader can see where they come from. However, I wonder how much the Wikimedia Foundation as the solicitor and recipient of reader donations has to do with it. For all its faults, the Wikimedia Foundation does not edit Wikipedia directly (its own article, i.e. the Wikipedia article on the Wikimedia Foundation, is crap for example, because they won't edit it and nobody else really cares to). So a decision like banning Grayzone is down to the volunteer editors that congregate around a topic area rather than the Foundation. (Grayzone is a curious case because the Blumenthal family has close links to the Clintons, and so does the Wikimedia Foundation, because some of the consultancy firms listed as major suppliers in their Forms 990 (Williamsworks, Minassian Media and Trilogy Interactive) are run by people with close personal ties to the Clintons.)

zozbot234 5y ago

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per... "The Grayzone was deprecated in the 2020 RfC. There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information. Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight. " I.e. it's "banned" for the same reason the Daily Mail is "banned".

frabbit 5y ago
That is exactly what is under dispute and it is un-sourced and worded very loosely. Not impressive for an organization that encourages citations of original source material.

patrick451 5y ago

I also stopped giving to wikipedia when it become clear they had become a political fifth column.

theon144 5y ago

AIUI the decision was made via standard procedure (a Request for Comments sub-page), and it was the consensus of the editors (that is, the ominous "they" in your comment) that it is unreliable as a source. Now there is an obvious need for quality control of accepted sources in a project like Wikipedia, the process was transparent, and its conclusion is up for debate (hence being conducted through a Request for Comments). What would you propose instead?