5 ms·

> Which partly explains Wikipedia's political stance. I'm curious to hear what you think Wikipedia's political stance is?

wrycoder 5y ago
Take the large number of science articles that have become politicized. Next, please name a couple of them that don't support the left side of the argument.
- jacobsenscott 5y ago
  If there are a large number of these articles post a few examples. Posting articles where "the left side" and the scientific consensus happen to align is cheating of course. There are a lot of those.
  - Gareth321 5y ago
    I am not OP but I would cite the covid-19 article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19 There is research to support all kinds of propositions regarding the vaccine's efficacy and safety. Of topical consideration is its efficacy in reduction of transmission. The article has been scrubbed (and all updates are being removed) which cite the current research that the vaccine is less effective at reducing transmission against more recent strains of covid-19; and especially compared with typical live-attenuated and inactivated vaccines. Citation: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2108891 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2108891 Further, all citations have been scrubbed (and all updates are being removed) which explain that mask efficacy in reducing transmission for children is questionable at best, and also demonstrably harmful. Citation: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1044767/Evidence_summary_-_face_coverings.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Further, all citations have been scrubbed (and all updates are being removed) which explain that vaccine efficacy wanes rather quickly compared with typical live-attenuated and inactivated vaccines. Citation: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345 Further, all mention of "natural immunity" has been scrubbed (and future updates are being removed) discussing the reality that those who have already recovered from covid-19 possess natural immunity to the virus which is at least as effective as vaccines. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627252/ These are all relevant and credible citations to an article discussing many aspects of the virus, yet they are being actively removed. I feel the need to postface my comments with the disclaimer that I love vaccines and have three covid-19 vaccines already, and am prepared to receive more. My comments are purely to provide a relevant and factual example to support OP's premise that there is some form of bias present in moderation of Wikipedia now. This bias is extremely difficult to quantify and qualify because there are millions of layers of bureaucracy built into Wikipedia's moderation system. It is almost ungovernable now, and those who have attained sufficient power and coordination can and do use that power to affect bias.
- jholman 5y ago
  If by "the left" and "the right", you're thinking of US political definitions, please name a couple of politicized scientific disputes where the right-wing side of a scientific argument has merit. I can think of one family of scientific subjects where the "progressive" side is almost as unscientific as the "conservative" side, and a particular case[0] where the "progressive" agenda was loudly denying the scientific state of the art. But I cannot think of any cases where the "conservative" side had actively better scientific grounding. But that, of course, is probably due to my bias, my thought bubble, etc. So please, if you can rise to the standard you're setting, I'd like to learn about it. (If nothing else, almost all of my friends and family are left of me, and it's nice to be able to reality-check them, when social mores permit.) [0] I'd provide my example, but I'm sufficiently afraid of progressive culture to not want to discuss the particular case under my own name. But I checked WP on the subject, and while it's not incredibly detailed either way, I don't think it supports the progressive side of the case w.r.t. the science. (In my assessment, the alleged progressives were wrong about the science in this particular case, although they may have been right about everything else, I dunno.)
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    A relevant example of this is COVID. It became politicized, with [some of] the left taking the "we must vaccinate all infants and become hermits indefinitely or everyone will die" position and [some of] the right taking the "vaccines are harmful and useless and the virus is just a cold" position. Neither of these positions is The Truth, as usual, but the result is that some of the things the right has been saying have been accurate but previously disparaged. For example, the difference between dying of COVID and dying with COVID, or accurately pointing out that the large majority of fatalities have been people with comorbidities.
    - smt88 5y ago
      > A relevant example of this is COVID This is literally an irrelevant example because it's not related to Wikipedia. New, evolving science (especially as it intersects with many governments' policies) is always going to be wrong to some degree.

wrycoder 5y ago

Take the large number of science articles that have become politicized. Next, please name a couple of them that don't support the left side of the argument.

jacobsenscott 5y ago
If there are a large number of these articles post a few examples. Posting articles where "the left side" and the scientific consensus happen to align is cheating of course. There are a lot of those.
- Gareth321 5y ago
  I am not OP but I would cite the covid-19 article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19 There is research to support all kinds of propositions regarding the vaccine's efficacy and safety. Of topical consideration is its efficacy in reduction of transmission. The article has been scrubbed (and all updates are being removed) which cite the current research that the vaccine is less effective at reducing transmission against more recent strains of covid-19; and especially compared with typical live-attenuated and inactivated vaccines. Citation: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2108891 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2108891 Further, all citations have been scrubbed (and all updates are being removed) which explain that mask efficacy in reducing transmission for children is questionable at best, and also demonstrably harmful. Citation: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1044767/Evidence_summary_-_face_coverings.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Further, all citations have been scrubbed (and all updates are being removed) which explain that vaccine efficacy wanes rather quickly compared with typical live-attenuated and inactivated vaccines. Citation: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345 Further, all mention of "natural immunity" has been scrubbed (and future updates are being removed) discussing the reality that those who have already recovered from covid-19 possess natural immunity to the virus which is at least as effective as vaccines. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627252/ These are all relevant and credible citations to an article discussing many aspects of the virus, yet they are being actively removed. I feel the need to postface my comments with the disclaimer that I love vaccines and have three covid-19 vaccines already, and am prepared to receive more. My comments are purely to provide a relevant and factual example to support OP's premise that there is some form of bias present in moderation of Wikipedia now. This bias is extremely difficult to quantify and qualify because there are millions of layers of bureaucracy built into Wikipedia's moderation system. It is almost ungovernable now, and those who have attained sufficient power and coordination can and do use that power to affect bias.
jholman 5y ago
If by "the left" and "the right", you're thinking of US political definitions, please name a couple of politicized scientific disputes where the right-wing side of a scientific argument has merit. I can think of one family of scientific subjects where the "progressive" side is almost as unscientific as the "conservative" side, and a particular case[0] where the "progressive" agenda was loudly denying the scientific state of the art. But I cannot think of any cases where the "conservative" side had actively better scientific grounding. But that, of course, is probably due to my bias, my thought bubble, etc. So please, if you can rise to the standard you're setting, I'd like to learn about it. (If nothing else, almost all of my friends and family are left of me, and it's nice to be able to reality-check them, when social mores permit.) [0] I'd provide my example, but I'm sufficiently afraid of progressive culture to not want to discuss the particular case under my own name. But I checked WP on the subject, and while it's not incredibly detailed either way, I don't think it supports the progressive side of the case w.r.t. the science. (In my assessment, the alleged progressives were wrong about the science in this particular case, although they may have been right about everything else, I dunno.)
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  A relevant example of this is COVID. It became politicized, with [some of] the left taking the "we must vaccinate all infants and become hermits indefinitely or everyone will die" position and [some of] the right taking the "vaccines are harmful and useless and the virus is just a cold" position. Neither of these positions is The Truth, as usual, but the result is that some of the things the right has been saying have been accurate but previously disparaged. For example, the difference between dying of COVID and dying with COVID, or accurately pointing out that the large majority of fatalities have been people with comorbidities.
  - smt88 5y ago
    > A relevant example of this is COVID This is literally an irrelevant example because it's not related to Wikipedia. New, evolving science (especially as it intersects with many governments' policies) is always going to be wrong to some degree.