3 ms·

Take RFK Jr's opening sentence: > Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials as RFK Jr. and the nickname Bobby, is an Ameri

Take RFK Jr's opening sentence: > Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials as RFK Jr. and the nickname Bobby, is an American environmental lawyer and writer who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories. That's the #1 most important thing to be known about him, Wikipedia? Compare to the opening paragraph on Stalin: > Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin was a Soviet revolutionary and politician who was the leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. He held power as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922–1952) and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union (1941–1953). Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become a dictator by the 1930s. Ideologically adhering to the Leninist interpretation of Marxism, he formalised these ideas as Marxism–Leninism, while his own policies are called Stalinism. Or Mao: > Mao Zedong was a Chinese politician, Marxist theorist, military strategist, poet, and revolutionary who was the founder of the People's Republic of China (PRC). He led the country from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976, while also serving as the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party during that time. His theories, military strategies and policies are known as Maoism.

nateglims 3y ago
What’s wrong with the RFK Jr entry?
- explaininjs 3y ago
  The term "misinformation" is editorial bias, unfit for an encyclopedia. As is "conspiracy theory". And yet you'll note the two biggest murderers in history have no such annotations tacked on to their views.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    Each of the others has decades to draw from when creating a summary. What else is RFK Jr known for if not for his anti-vaccine views? It seems pretty accurate to make that a major part of any summary about him. Otherwise the only notable thing is that he's a Kennedy. Is there any term more accurate than 'misinformation' for what he says? When a claim is not even slightly supported with hard evidence, and is in fact heavily contradicted, it's fair to label it for what it is.
    - explaininjs 3y ago
      His claims have been supported with hard evidence. But it’s hard evidence that people don’t like, so they ignore it or throw “-ism” exceptions [1] at it and pretend that precludes them from critically thought. [2]. You can see how an example of how much the media loves apply that “misinformation” word you keep using to people who refer to officially peer reviewed government sponsored research that doesn’t align with the narrative they want to push here [2]. I expect that level of bias from the media, encyclopedias should be tasked to rise above it. The report to which he refers is here [3], published by the NIH. And spoke. about here [4] 1. http://paulgraham.com/heresy.html http://paulgraham.com/heresy.html 2. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rfk-jr-accused-making-antisemitic-racist-claims-covid/story?id=101323851 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rfk-jr-accused-making-antise... 3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32664879/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32664879/ 4. https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1680227322509635595 https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/16802273225096355...
  - nateglims 3y ago
    Is that editorial bias if it’s the consensus of experts? Isn’t that what an encyclopedia is even if it produces its own sort of bias?
    - explaininjs 3y ago
      Many experts agree with him. But you wouldn’t know it from his encyclopedia entry. Don’t you think that’s an issue?
The_Colonel 3y ago
> That's the #1 most important thing to be known about him, Wikipedia? Well, yeah. What else makes him important? Contrast that with Stalin, a long-standing leader of a superpower, with immense influence on the course of the 20th century.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  "Stalin (1924-1953) was a criminal, terrorist and superspreader of misinformation who promoted economic illiteracy and conspiracy theories about the USA."
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    Stalin wasn't sentenced by a court (if you ignore the Czarist time which is very far from being the most important fact), so Wikipedia can't really call him "criminal". Not sure what you mean by "terrorist" - his activity during Czarism might qualify, but it's again very far from being his most important activity. Equally, I'm not sure what is meant by the other claims. Maybe they are true in some sense, but again, they are just minor aspects of one of the most important persons of the 20th century.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      RFK Jr is running for President, that would be the most important thing to know about him and yet Wikipedia does not see fit to mention it in the first sentence.
      - The_Colonel 3y ago
        Well, that's literally in the second sentence.
        explaininjs 3y ago
        The stalin article doesn’t bother to mention the tens of millions of deaths associated with his beliefs/policies until the absolute last sentence of the main body section, whereas the RFK article finds the need to say “we the editors found some scientists who disagree with these views, and we think you need to know about it!” in sentence number one. And of course for every “source” they provide, another exists with equal credibility saying the opposite.
slater 3y ago
Yeah, it's a complete mystery why two of the most important* leaders of the 20th century have more well-written intros than some self-aggrandizing dildo who's into Covid-19 conspiracies and other misinformation nonsense. Truly, a most vexing situation. * i'm obviously not agreeing with their politics
- explaininjs 3y ago
  Can you name a falsity he has spread? Note that I don’t support him either at this point, for other reasons. But the editorial bias is absurd.
- hackeraccount 3y ago
  The RFK jr. entry looks like nut hunting.
  - explaininjs 3y ago
    Is this a term of art? I intuitively understand but don’t see any references.
    - hackeraccount 3y ago
      Not a term of art so far as I know. I think I heard it on a political podcast (more in terms of finding the craziest view in a group as opposed to the craziest view of a particular person) - and like you to hear it is to understand it. Probably best seen as a cousin of the straw man.

nateglims 3y ago

What’s wrong with the RFK Jr entry?

explaininjs 3y ago
The term "misinformation" is editorial bias, unfit for an encyclopedia. As is "conspiracy theory". And yet you'll note the two biggest murderers in history have no such annotations tacked on to their views.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  Each of the others has decades to draw from when creating a summary. What else is RFK Jr known for if not for his anti-vaccine views? It seems pretty accurate to make that a major part of any summary about him. Otherwise the only notable thing is that he's a Kennedy. Is there any term more accurate than 'misinformation' for what he says? When a claim is not even slightly supported with hard evidence, and is in fact heavily contradicted, it's fair to label it for what it is.
  - explaininjs 3y ago
    His claims have been supported with hard evidence. But it’s hard evidence that people don’t like, so they ignore it or throw “-ism” exceptions [1] at it and pretend that precludes them from critically thought. [2]. You can see how an example of how much the media loves apply that “misinformation” word you keep using to people who refer to officially peer reviewed government sponsored research that doesn’t align with the narrative they want to push here [2]. I expect that level of bias from the media, encyclopedias should be tasked to rise above it. The report to which he refers is here [3], published by the NIH. And spoke. about here [4] 1. http://paulgraham.com/heresy.html http://paulgraham.com/heresy.html 2. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rfk-jr-accused-making-antisemitic-racist-claims-covid/story?id=101323851 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rfk-jr-accused-making-antise... 3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32664879/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32664879/ 4. https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1680227322509635595 https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/16802273225096355...
- nateglims 3y ago
  Is that editorial bias if it’s the consensus of experts? Isn’t that what an encyclopedia is even if it produces its own sort of bias?
  - explaininjs 3y ago
    Many experts agree with him. But you wouldn’t know it from his encyclopedia entry. Don’t you think that’s an issue?

The_Colonel 3y ago

> That's the #1 most important thing to be known about him, Wikipedia? Well, yeah. What else makes him important? Contrast that with Stalin, a long-standing leader of a superpower, with immense influence on the course of the 20th century.

nvm0n2 3y ago
"Stalin (1924-1953) was a criminal, terrorist and superspreader of misinformation who promoted economic illiteracy and conspiracy theories about the USA."
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  Stalin wasn't sentenced by a court (if you ignore the Czarist time which is very far from being the most important fact), so Wikipedia can't really call him "criminal". Not sure what you mean by "terrorist" - his activity during Czarism might qualify, but it's again very far from being his most important activity. Equally, I'm not sure what is meant by the other claims. Maybe they are true in some sense, but again, they are just minor aspects of one of the most important persons of the 20th century.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    RFK Jr is running for President, that would be the most important thing to know about him and yet Wikipedia does not see fit to mention it in the first sentence.
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      Well, that's literally in the second sentence.
      - explaininjs 3y ago
        The stalin article doesn’t bother to mention the tens of millions of deaths associated with his beliefs/policies until the absolute last sentence of the main body section, whereas the RFK article finds the need to say “we the editors found some scientists who disagree with these views, and we think you need to know about it!” in sentence number one. And of course for every “source” they provide, another exists with equal credibility saying the opposite.

slater 3y ago

Yeah, it's a complete mystery why two of the most important* leaders of the 20th century have more well-written intros than some self-aggrandizing dildo who's into Covid-19 conspiracies and other misinformation nonsense. Truly, a most vexing situation. * i'm obviously not agreeing with their politics

explaininjs 3y ago
Can you name a falsity he has spread? Note that I don’t support him either at this point, for other reasons. But the editorial bias is absurd.
hackeraccount 3y ago
The RFK jr. entry looks like nut hunting.
- explaininjs 3y ago
  Is this a term of art? I intuitively understand but don’t see any references.
  - hackeraccount 3y ago
    Not a term of art so far as I know. I think I heard it on a political podcast (more in terms of finding the craziest view in a group as opposed to the craziest view of a particular person) - and like you to hear it is to understand it. Probably best seen as a cousin of the straw man.