3 ms·

So apparently this is basically conservapedia 2.0.

fake-name 3y ago
So, looking at the "about the foundation page" [1], we have conspiracy wingnuttery about: - Global warming - Covid lab-leak stuff - Jimmy Wales being mean to Elon Musk (Really?) On the valid side, we have: - Holocaust minimization (this is a valid complaint) - Systemic bias at wikipedia (even linking to [2]) So their solution to this is... copy wikipedia, but add more rightwing bent? Maybe the reason wikipedia seems left wing is something to do with the fact that a lot of right wing talking points fail apart under scrutiny. The fact that their "improved" fascism example claims (without citation) "Corporatism became one of the main tenets of fascism" makes it a farce. They also link to [3], which is (unintentionally) farcical site that makes the tired argument that fascism is left-wing as a useful source, which should tell you everything you need to know about this place. 1: https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia_Foundation https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia_Foundation 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias 3: https://c2cjournal.ca/2022/01/left-wing-fascism-and-its-war-against-conservatives/ https://c2cjournal.ca/2022/01/left-wing-fascism-and-its-war-...
- tivert 3y ago
  > Maybe the reason wikipedia seems left wing is something to do with the fact that a lot of right wing talking points [fall] apart under scrutiny. I hear people say stuff like that a lot (e.g. reality has a X bias, where X is some identity of the speaker), but I'm convinced it's a flattering fiction. When someone disagrees with something, it often appears to "fall apart" to them when scrutinize it using their incompatible assumptions (e.g. the source of the disagreement). When someone agrees with something that's weak, they tend to avert their eyes from the problem. The end result is people feel they they couldn't be more righteously right, that their opinions are "objective truths," and that their opponents couldn't be more wrong, but the feeling is just a self-serving bias. That bias tends to go unchecked and unmoderated when the opponents are remote from one's day-to-day life and can be thoroughly othered.

So, looking at the "about the foundation page" [1], we have conspiracy wingnuttery about: - Global warming - Covid lab-leak stuff - Jimmy Wales being mean to Elon Musk (Really?) On the valid side, we have: - Holocaust minimization (this is a valid complaint) - Systemic bias at wikipedia (even linking to [2]) So their solution to this is... copy wikipedia, but add more rightwing bent? Maybe the reason wikipedia seems left wing is something to do with the fact that a lot of right wing talking points fail apart under scrutiny. The fact that their "improved" fascism example claims (without citation) "Corporatism became one of the main tenets of fascism" makes it a farce. They also link to [3], which is (unintentionally) farcical site that makes the tired argument that fascism is left-wing as a useful source, which should tell you everything you need to know about this place. 1: https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia_Foundation https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia_Foundation 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias 3: https://c2cjournal.ca/2022/01/left-wing-fascism-and-its-war-against-conservatives/ https://c2cjournal.ca/2022/01/left-wing-fascism-and-its-war-...

tivert 3y ago
> Maybe the reason wikipedia seems left wing is something to do with the fact that a lot of right wing talking points [fall] apart under scrutiny. I hear people say stuff like that a lot (e.g. reality has a X bias, where X is some identity of the speaker), but I'm convinced it's a flattering fiction. When someone disagrees with something, it often appears to "fall apart" to them when scrutinize it using their incompatible assumptions (e.g. the source of the disagreement). When someone agrees with something that's weak, they tend to avert their eyes from the problem. The end result is people feel they they couldn't be more righteously right, that their opinions are "objective truths," and that their opponents couldn't be more wrong, but the feeling is just a self-serving bias. That bias tends to go unchecked and unmoderated when the opponents are remote from one's day-to-day life and can be thoroughly othered.