6 ms·

1) Is there a neutral historian version of world events? 2) Who chooses which facts show up, or how do we know if certain critical facts are missing? 3) In wh

1) Is there a neutral historian version of world events? 2) Who chooses which facts show up, or how do we know if certain critical facts are missing? 3) In what way are they strayed far away from it?

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
>3) In what way are they strayed far away from it? By introducing political bias into the selection and presentation of information. If I check pages on feminism or even radical feminism, I wouldn't see any information on how some prominent early feminist figures advocated mass genocide of men. Most of the pages are generally shown benign. If I check a few pages on prominent manosphere subcultures, I don't have to scroll far before the word 'misogynist' pops up, despite the fact both cultures are fairly similar (both contain a small extremist population and a large population of idealists), and feminism having far, far more text written, both per page and across Wikipedia as a whole. Personally, I'm fairly certain spreading a few more words on the bloodlust of early feminists would shine a fairly different light on the movement without changing the ideology of the majority. It's not just information hidden away from high traffic pages, it practically doesn't exist if you don't know exactly what to look for. Yet any kind of filth is practically at the front for anything related to the countercultures. That reeks of tone setting.
- wasmitnetzen 4y ago
  I'm sure we all agree that Wikipedia has a ton of biases in all sorts of directions, but I'm not following that Wikimedia has anything to do with. They rarely make any editorial choices, usually only following legal decisions.
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    Maybe it doesn't, but a commenter further up mentioned wanting both Wikipedia and Wikimedia. So in turn, I'm not following why Wikimedia alone is the focus here. That said, it seems like a no-brainer that using a hands-off approach in a subculture known for being biased is an open invitation for articles to become biased. That doesn't mean Wikimedia is at fault, either.
- pelasaco 4y ago
  The Human page, is quite neutral too (/s): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Gender
  - Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
    Whats wrong with that blurb? The only bit missing a citation is "most societies have men over women", and that seems fairly unproblematic
    - pelasaco 4y ago
      > Whats wrong with that blurb? well, the agenda trying to be pushed. "Human societies typically exhibit gender identities and gender roles that distinguish between masculine and feminine characteristics and prescribe the range of acceptable behaviours and attitudes for their members based on their sex.".. Typically? Nope. "The most common categorisation is a gender binary of men and women.[422] Many societies recognise a third gender,[423] or less commonly a fourth or fifth.[424][425] In some other societies, non-binary is used as an umbrella term for a range of gender identities that are not solely male or female.".. Many societies recognise a third gender? Nope. Just some hyperbolic mischosen words right?
      - Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
        > Typically? Nope. What? How is it not typical to have general men and women roles in different societies? Those roles aren't always the same but the existance of such roles is more than typical is almost ubiquitous. > Many societies recognise a third gender? Nope. Is the problem there the word "many"? There is a citation with the number of societies they found that have such a mention. They do say the most common is just two and its primarily associated with the sex of the person, how is the acknowledgement of cultural genders beyond that binary "an agenda"? > Just some hyperbolic mischosen words right? So you think the problem is two quantitative words (many/typically) that make certain social constructs seem more common that what you believe is fair? Is that what it boils down to?
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
  > If I check pages on feminism or even radical feminism, I wouldn't see any information on how some prominent early feminist figures advocated mass genocide of men. So you think they missed critical information, which related to my second point, who gets to decide. Currently is unpaid moderators, so wikimedia can hardly be blamed for it. no? > I'm fairly certain spreading a few more words on the bloodlust of early feminists would shine a fairly different light on the movement without changing the ideology of the majority. But that seems to be intentionally deciding what people should believe. If you think that the ideology of early feminists is irrelevant to the larger movement but might help to turn people to your side, you're not keeping wikipedia unbiased, youre just biasing it more no? > Yet any kind of filth is practically at the front for anything related to the countercultures. What countercultures?
naasking 4y ago
> 3) In what way are they strayed far away from it? Even if you agree with the spirit of these grants, I'm sure this is not what people thought they were funding when they donated to Wikipedia: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Grant_recipients https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Grant_... Edit: consider spending on the above vs. hiring more people to translate some of the 6.5 million English articles to other languages that typically number only ~1.5 million or so.
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
  > I'm sure this is not what people thought they were funding when they donated to Wikipedia I do not think your argument follows. Wikipedia as a whole is untrustworthy because at one point they donated 1 million bucks divided between 5 NGOs through their fundation? It would be like arguing that Exxon has strayed far far far away from their mission because they donated 20 million to the Amazon conservation. Exxon is still extracting oil and maximising profit for its shareholders, and wikipedia is still a free open encyclopedia. I don't think miniscule donations (related to revenue) mark a departure from the mission worthy of betraying their core intention.
  - naasking 4y ago
    Firstly, you asked how they strayed far from their goal of being a "neutral historian of world events", at least in idealistic terms. Those grants are specifically funding activism which many would argue is not neutral, so your question has been answered. Secondly, Exxon is not a charitable organization so you're drawing a false equivalency. Wikimedia is asking for donations with ads that suggest donating is about keeping Wikipedia running. Most people donating then arguably think they're keeping Wikipedia running and/or expanding its usefulness, such as with translations. I think most people would be quite surprised to see some of that money going to activist DEI initiatives that many would consider to be far from the goal of increasing Wikipedia's utility.
    - Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
      > you asked how they strayed far from their goal of being a "neutral historian of world events", I asked him how they strayed far far far away from being free, neutral and preserving facts. > Those grants are specifically funding activism which many would argue is not neutral, so your question has been answered. this does not follow again. I mean first of all, free and preserving facts would be fulfilled so the only part that could be compromised as you said is neutrality. But their grants affect future events not the ones recorded and wikimedia aren't even the people writting the text on wikipedia, they are unpaid moderators. So you would have to prove how the parent company donating to some company can affect volunteers in a way so blatant they would stray "far far far away" from those three missions. > Exxon is not a charitable organization so you're drawing a false equivalency. how so? The non voting shareholders of exxon and the donators in wikimedia have the same role, financing the operation. > I think most people would be quite surprised to see some of that money going to activist DEI initiatives that many would consider to be far from the goal of increasing Wikipedia's utility. Sure, but that is still not proof of them not being neutral though. You are implying things and letting people read between the lines but even if you try and prove ideological bias in the grants given, there is not logical throughline into the unpaid moderation of the content of the pages. At most you could argue they betrayed the trust of donors by using those donations for paying for things beyond the server costs of wikipedia. Which is fair, but from that to calling their mission compromised seems a leap a tad far
hbrn 4y ago
> Is there a neutral historian version of world events? Just because there's no truly neutral version doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for neutrality. There are clearly anti-neutral approaches which we should always try to eliminate. > Who chooses which facts show up, or how do we know if certain critical facts are missing? Wikipedia already has a pretty good policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...

1) Is there a neutral historian version of world events? 2) Who chooses which facts show up, or how do we know if certain critical facts are missing? 3) In what way are they strayed far away from it?

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

>3) In what way are they strayed far away from it? By introducing political bias into the selection and presentation of information. If I check pages on feminism or even radical feminism, I wouldn't see any information on how some prominent early feminist figures advocated mass genocide of men. Most of the pages are generally shown benign. If I check a few pages on prominent manosphere subcultures, I don't have to scroll far before the word 'misogynist' pops up, despite the fact both cultures are fairly similar (both contain a small extremist population and a large population of idealists), and feminism having far, far more text written, both per page and across Wikipedia as a whole. Personally, I'm fairly certain spreading a few more words on the bloodlust of early feminists would shine a fairly different light on the movement without changing the ideology of the majority. It's not just information hidden away from high traffic pages, it practically doesn't exist if you don't know exactly what to look for. Yet any kind of filth is practically at the front for anything related to the countercultures. That reeks of tone setting.

wasmitnetzen 4y ago
I'm sure we all agree that Wikipedia has a ton of biases in all sorts of directions, but I'm not following that Wikimedia has anything to do with. They rarely make any editorial choices, usually only following legal decisions.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  Maybe it doesn't, but a commenter further up mentioned wanting both Wikipedia and Wikimedia. So in turn, I'm not following why Wikimedia alone is the focus here. That said, it seems like a no-brainer that using a hands-off approach in a subculture known for being biased is an open invitation for articles to become biased. That doesn't mean Wikimedia is at fault, either.
pelasaco 4y ago
The Human page, is quite neutral too (/s): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Gender
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
  Whats wrong with that blurb? The only bit missing a citation is "most societies have men over women", and that seems fairly unproblematic
  - pelasaco 4y ago
    > Whats wrong with that blurb? well, the agenda trying to be pushed. "Human societies typically exhibit gender identities and gender roles that distinguish between masculine and feminine characteristics and prescribe the range of acceptable behaviours and attitudes for their members based on their sex.".. Typically? Nope. "The most common categorisation is a gender binary of men and women.[422] Many societies recognise a third gender,[423] or less commonly a fourth or fifth.[424][425] In some other societies, non-binary is used as an umbrella term for a range of gender identities that are not solely male or female.".. Many societies recognise a third gender? Nope. Just some hyperbolic mischosen words right?
    - Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
      > Typically? Nope. What? How is it not typical to have general men and women roles in different societies? Those roles aren't always the same but the existance of such roles is more than typical is almost ubiquitous. > Many societies recognise a third gender? Nope. Is the problem there the word "many"? There is a citation with the number of societies they found that have such a mention. They do say the most common is just two and its primarily associated with the sex of the person, how is the acknowledgement of cultural genders beyond that binary "an agenda"? > Just some hyperbolic mischosen words right? So you think the problem is two quantitative words (many/typically) that make certain social constructs seem more common that what you believe is fair? Is that what it boils down to?
Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
> If I check pages on feminism or even radical feminism, I wouldn't see any information on how some prominent early feminist figures advocated mass genocide of men. So you think they missed critical information, which related to my second point, who gets to decide. Currently is unpaid moderators, so wikimedia can hardly be blamed for it. no? > I'm fairly certain spreading a few more words on the bloodlust of early feminists would shine a fairly different light on the movement without changing the ideology of the majority. But that seems to be intentionally deciding what people should believe. If you think that the ideology of early feminists is irrelevant to the larger movement but might help to turn people to your side, you're not keeping wikipedia unbiased, youre just biasing it more no? > Yet any kind of filth is practically at the front for anything related to the countercultures. What countercultures?

naasking 4y ago

> 3) In what way are they strayed far away from it? Even if you agree with the spirit of these grants, I'm sure this is not what people thought they were funding when they donated to Wikipedia: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Grant_recipients https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Grant_... Edit: consider spending on the above vs. hiring more people to translate some of the 6.5 million English articles to other languages that typically number only ~1.5 million or so.

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
> I'm sure this is not what people thought they were funding when they donated to Wikipedia I do not think your argument follows. Wikipedia as a whole is untrustworthy because at one point they donated 1 million bucks divided between 5 NGOs through their fundation? It would be like arguing that Exxon has strayed far far far away from their mission because they donated 20 million to the Amazon conservation. Exxon is still extracting oil and maximising profit for its shareholders, and wikipedia is still a free open encyclopedia. I don't think miniscule donations (related to revenue) mark a departure from the mission worthy of betraying their core intention.
- naasking 4y ago
  Firstly, you asked how they strayed far from their goal of being a "neutral historian of world events", at least in idealistic terms. Those grants are specifically funding activism which many would argue is not neutral, so your question has been answered. Secondly, Exxon is not a charitable organization so you're drawing a false equivalency. Wikimedia is asking for donations with ads that suggest donating is about keeping Wikipedia running. Most people donating then arguably think they're keeping Wikipedia running and/or expanding its usefulness, such as with translations. I think most people would be quite surprised to see some of that money going to activist DEI initiatives that many would consider to be far from the goal of increasing Wikipedia's utility.
  - Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
    > you asked how they strayed far from their goal of being a "neutral historian of world events", I asked him how they strayed far far far away from being free, neutral and preserving facts. > Those grants are specifically funding activism which many would argue is not neutral, so your question has been answered. this does not follow again. I mean first of all, free and preserving facts would be fulfilled so the only part that could be compromised as you said is neutrality. But their grants affect future events not the ones recorded and wikimedia aren't even the people writting the text on wikipedia, they are unpaid moderators. So you would have to prove how the parent company donating to some company can affect volunteers in a way so blatant they would stray "far far far away" from those three missions. > Exxon is not a charitable organization so you're drawing a false equivalency. how so? The non voting shareholders of exxon and the donators in wikimedia have the same role, financing the operation. > I think most people would be quite surprised to see some of that money going to activist DEI initiatives that many would consider to be far from the goal of increasing Wikipedia's utility. Sure, but that is still not proof of them not being neutral though. You are implying things and letting people read between the lines but even if you try and prove ideological bias in the grants given, there is not logical throughline into the unpaid moderation of the content of the pages. At most you could argue they betrayed the trust of donors by using those donations for paying for things beyond the server costs of wikipedia. Which is fair, but from that to calling their mission compromised seems a leap a tad far

hbrn 4y ago

> Is there a neutral historian version of world events? Just because there's no truly neutral version doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for neutrality. There are clearly anti-neutral approaches which we should always try to eliminate. > Who chooses which facts show up, or how do we know if certain critical facts are missing? Wikipedia already has a pretty good policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...