4 ms·

I didn't read it all but wasn't hard to find "mistakes" in that wiki article For example: "Several countries which are historically neutral, such as Switzerlan

by noxer 5y ago

I didn't read it all but wasn't hard to find "mistakes" in that wiki article For example: "Several countries which are historically neutral, such as Switzerland and Singapore have agreed to sanctions." Clearly a misrepresentation of Swiss neutrality. The news outlets all over the world posted this and various similar claims over the last week and wiki picks it up. Some news articles even straight out tell you that Switzerland ditched its neutrality and "picked a side" in this war. It could not be more wrong. But Wikipedia doesn't care about right or wrong it just repeats what a subset of sources say even if its like in this case obviously propaganda.

windmark 5y ago
Can you elaborate with sources for someone who have only read the main stream media about this?
- noxer 5y ago
  "Several countries which are historically neutral, such as Switzerland [...] have agreed to sanctions." This implies that Switzerland neutrality is somehow relevant while in reality it is not. It implies sanctions DESPITE neutrality. https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/fdfa/aktuell/newsuebersicht/2022/03/neutralitaet.html https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/fdfa/aktuell/newsuebers...
  - topranks 5y ago
    I get it - you feel the word “neutrality” should only be used to mean military neutrality - and you’re annoyed that Wikipedia has used a broader definition used by various media outlets. I think what your arguing here is semantics, as opposed to something that’s “factually incorrect”. The problem you describe is one Wikipedia suffers from. If the conventional wisdom is wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. And it will never be the first declare the conventional wisdom was wrong, the majority needs to change their mind before it will. It’s a downside of requiring citations to support statements. But probably unavoidable.
    - convolvatron 5y ago
      the assignment of semantics to a sentence isn't the imposition of some kind of subjective interpretation of some words that we shouldn't get bogged down in its literally the assignment of meaning to those words. which is really pretty close to arguing about the truth of the sentence just to argue semantics
    - QuietCF 5y ago
      It doesn’t have to do with military neutrality. The sentence implies that Switzerland due to their neutral status never or almost never agree to sanctions of any kind. However their neutral status has never been an indication of that. It clearly reads as sanctions despite historical neutrality. Either this is an entertainment piece and they can write it how they want (but it shouldn’t be mentioned on a wiki page) or it’s a news piece and should be without these kind of “suggestive but not exactly saying it” articles that blur the line between non-news and deniability thereof. The only thing it would have cost them to not mention Switzerland’s neutrality would be clicks/money. 0% truth would have been lost writing the context properly.
    - noxer 5y ago
      "Swiss neutrality" is its own "thing" its not the same as "military neutrality" its a very broad concept that does include military neutrality but many more things that aren't part of the dictionary definition of the word "neutrality". I would point you to the wiki article that explains it but its very bad. Anyway the overall conclusion people get when reading the statement that neutral countries DESPITE being neural joined sanctions (picked a side/no longer neutral) and that is wrong especially in case of Switzerland. Its not semantics its factually wrong because if there would be an attempt to connect "Swiss neutrality" to the sanctions it would be the other way around. I.e. to stay true to the concept Switzerland would have to join sanctions because other wise it could be used to circumvent the sanctions from others which then could theoretically interfere with the idea behind Swiss neutrality especially if Switzerland or companies there would profit from this. >The problem you describe is one Wikipedia suffers from. If the conventional wisdom is wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. And it will never be the first declare the conventional wisdom was wrong, the majority needs to change their mind before it will. Indeed but its not just that, even if something is know (or known to be wrong) if no one in the accepted sources group actually explicitly write it out then there is no source and you can not add it to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia editors also like to write X as if it is a fact then if the is a source opposing it they write the opposition as a quote from the given author or source.
alephaleph 5y ago
I don't really think it's Wikipedia's job to litigate the truthfulness of such claims -- it's about consensus, not about "truth." Assigning Wikipedia the job of deciding what is true and what is not beyond just summarizing mainstream consensus and Wikipedia ends up having to take many more political stances and the project could quickly break down.
- Jiro 5y ago
  If Wikipedia wasn't about truth, nobody would use it. And if the consensus is particularly bad on a subject and the people editing the Wikipedia page are cooperative, they'll usually be able to find a rule intepretation that allows the consensus statements not to count (for insatnce, claiming that a generally reliable source isn't reliable for this particular statement).
- noxer 5y ago
  I didn't say its Wikipedia fault or that they did anything other than what they claim to do "pick up the stuff form other places". But wrong is still wrong and wrong is not useful. And even thou I know its wrong I have no way to fix it despite the idea of Wikipedia that anyone could correct everything. But I can't because I would need to find an article (from an accepted source) which opposes this exact claim. And even then if there are 5 sources for something that is wrong and 1 source pointing out that it is wrong, Wikipedia will at best report this as neutral as it gets which boils down to "The majority says [insert wrong statement here]". This IS neutral and in it self correct but the wrong statement is still there anyway. This is just the fundamental way how Wikipedia works.
jl6 5y ago
Are you disputing that Switzerland is historically neutral?
- fortran77 5y ago
  I will. They clearly aided and abetted the Germans government over citizens Germany was oppressing/killing during World War II.
  - noxer 5y ago
    Switzerland was neutral during WWII. You may just have a simplistic idea of what Swiss neutrality means. It certainly does not mean that the well-being of their own people is sacrificed for some kind of morally righteous "neutral" foreign politics. The people in power back then hat to carefully balance their actions and they had a lot to loose, in hindsight they did incredibly well.
- noxer 5y ago
  No absolutely not. But the Swiss neutrality is a broad concept/principle not a strictly defined set of actions that the gov can or can not do. The sanction against Russia for example are not in conflict with the neutrality principle despite the media reporting pretending that this is somehow "unexpected" or "a first" or "clearly picking a side" or even "ditching neutrality because Russia so bad". This is either the media sacrificing truth for click bait headlines or straight out propaganda but its in "Wikipedia trusted" media so Wikipedia picks that up because that what it should do. So now you have people thinking Switzerland somehow after 200 year of being neutral sides with EU/NATO whatever against Russia. And if people point out that this is not true, people point to Wikipedia. That is the dilemma. Wikipedia doesn't say its a source for truth but people use it as such anyway.
  - topranks 5y ago
    A week before they sanctioned those on the EU list the Swiss government had declined to apply any sanctions, citing Switzerland’s neutrality as the reason. According to Reuters: > Switzerland has steered clear of imposing sanctions in a string of crises, including when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. Up to now, the exception has been sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council, which it has to implement under international law. So certainly it seems like they are “taking sides” here more than ever before. Seems like a change in what they consider being neutral to be.
alecco 5y ago
A bigger issue I see with that Wikipedia page is it doesn't list the blocking of regulatory approval of the finished Nord Stream 2 as a cause. It's only mentioned way down and more like "wet streets cause rain". Of course, even Russian propaganda doesn't mention it. Sending kids to die to a neighbor country because of a gas pipeline doesn't have the same ring to it. They go with some kind of motherland nonsense. It's just money. Always is.
fortran77 5y ago
Agreed. It could at least say "Switzerland, which considered itself neutral for other conflicts...." instead of declaring it as factually "historically neutral."

by noxer 5y ago

windmark 5y ago

Can you elaborate with sources for someone who have only read the main stream media about this?

noxer 5y ago
"Several countries which are historically neutral, such as Switzerland [...] have agreed to sanctions." This implies that Switzerland neutrality is somehow relevant while in reality it is not. It implies sanctions DESPITE neutrality. https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/fdfa/aktuell/newsuebersicht/2022/03/neutralitaet.html https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/fdfa/aktuell/newsuebers...
- topranks 5y ago
  I get it - you feel the word “neutrality” should only be used to mean military neutrality - and you’re annoyed that Wikipedia has used a broader definition used by various media outlets. I think what your arguing here is semantics, as opposed to something that’s “factually incorrect”. The problem you describe is one Wikipedia suffers from. If the conventional wisdom is wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. And it will never be the first declare the conventional wisdom was wrong, the majority needs to change their mind before it will. It’s a downside of requiring citations to support statements. But probably unavoidable.
  - convolvatron 5y ago
    the assignment of semantics to a sentence isn't the imposition of some kind of subjective interpretation of some words that we shouldn't get bogged down in its literally the assignment of meaning to those words. which is really pretty close to arguing about the truth of the sentence just to argue semantics
  - QuietCF 5y ago
    It doesn’t have to do with military neutrality. The sentence implies that Switzerland due to their neutral status never or almost never agree to sanctions of any kind. However their neutral status has never been an indication of that. It clearly reads as sanctions despite historical neutrality. Either this is an entertainment piece and they can write it how they want (but it shouldn’t be mentioned on a wiki page) or it’s a news piece and should be without these kind of “suggestive but not exactly saying it” articles that blur the line between non-news and deniability thereof. The only thing it would have cost them to not mention Switzerland’s neutrality would be clicks/money. 0% truth would have been lost writing the context properly.
  - noxer 5y ago
    "Swiss neutrality" is its own "thing" its not the same as "military neutrality" its a very broad concept that does include military neutrality but many more things that aren't part of the dictionary definition of the word "neutrality". I would point you to the wiki article that explains it but its very bad. Anyway the overall conclusion people get when reading the statement that neutral countries DESPITE being neural joined sanctions (picked a side/no longer neutral) and that is wrong especially in case of Switzerland. Its not semantics its factually wrong because if there would be an attempt to connect "Swiss neutrality" to the sanctions it would be the other way around. I.e. to stay true to the concept Switzerland would have to join sanctions because other wise it could be used to circumvent the sanctions from others which then could theoretically interfere with the idea behind Swiss neutrality especially if Switzerland or companies there would profit from this. >The problem you describe is one Wikipedia suffers from. If the conventional wisdom is wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. And it will never be the first declare the conventional wisdom was wrong, the majority needs to change their mind before it will. Indeed but its not just that, even if something is know (or known to be wrong) if no one in the accepted sources group actually explicitly write it out then there is no source and you can not add it to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia editors also like to write X as if it is a fact then if the is a source opposing it they write the opposition as a quote from the given author or source.

alephaleph 5y ago

I don't really think it's Wikipedia's job to litigate the truthfulness of such claims -- it's about consensus, not about "truth." Assigning Wikipedia the job of deciding what is true and what is not beyond just summarizing mainstream consensus and Wikipedia ends up having to take many more political stances and the project could quickly break down.

Jiro 5y ago
If Wikipedia wasn't about truth, nobody would use it. And if the consensus is particularly bad on a subject and the people editing the Wikipedia page are cooperative, they'll usually be able to find a rule intepretation that allows the consensus statements not to count (for insatnce, claiming that a generally reliable source isn't reliable for this particular statement).
noxer 5y ago
I didn't say its Wikipedia fault or that they did anything other than what they claim to do "pick up the stuff form other places". But wrong is still wrong and wrong is not useful. And even thou I know its wrong I have no way to fix it despite the idea of Wikipedia that anyone could correct everything. But I can't because I would need to find an article (from an accepted source) which opposes this exact claim. And even then if there are 5 sources for something that is wrong and 1 source pointing out that it is wrong, Wikipedia will at best report this as neutral as it gets which boils down to "The majority says [insert wrong statement here]". This IS neutral and in it self correct but the wrong statement is still there anyway. This is just the fundamental way how Wikipedia works.

jl6 5y ago

Are you disputing that Switzerland is historically neutral?

fortran77 5y ago
I will. They clearly aided and abetted the Germans government over citizens Germany was oppressing/killing during World War II.
- noxer 5y ago
  Switzerland was neutral during WWII. You may just have a simplistic idea of what Swiss neutrality means. It certainly does not mean that the well-being of their own people is sacrificed for some kind of morally righteous "neutral" foreign politics. The people in power back then hat to carefully balance their actions and they had a lot to loose, in hindsight they did incredibly well.
noxer 5y ago
No absolutely not. But the Swiss neutrality is a broad concept/principle not a strictly defined set of actions that the gov can or can not do. The sanction against Russia for example are not in conflict with the neutrality principle despite the media reporting pretending that this is somehow "unexpected" or "a first" or "clearly picking a side" or even "ditching neutrality because Russia so bad". This is either the media sacrificing truth for click bait headlines or straight out propaganda but its in "Wikipedia trusted" media so Wikipedia picks that up because that what it should do. So now you have people thinking Switzerland somehow after 200 year of being neutral sides with EU/NATO whatever against Russia. And if people point out that this is not true, people point to Wikipedia. That is the dilemma. Wikipedia doesn't say its a source for truth but people use it as such anyway.
- topranks 5y ago
  A week before they sanctioned those on the EU list the Swiss government had declined to apply any sanctions, citing Switzerland’s neutrality as the reason. According to Reuters: > Switzerland has steered clear of imposing sanctions in a string of crises, including when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. Up to now, the exception has been sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council, which it has to implement under international law. So certainly it seems like they are “taking sides” here more than ever before. Seems like a change in what they consider being neutral to be.

alecco 5y ago

A bigger issue I see with that Wikipedia page is it doesn't list the blocking of regulatory approval of the finished Nord Stream 2 as a cause. It's only mentioned way down and more like "wet streets cause rain". Of course, even Russian propaganda doesn't mention it. Sending kids to die to a neighbor country because of a gas pipeline doesn't have the same ring to it. They go with some kind of motherland nonsense. It's just money. Always is.

fortran77 5y ago

Agreed. It could at least say "Switzerland, which considered itself neutral for other conflicts...." instead of declaring it as factually "historically neutral."