3 ms·

My (admittedly personal & anecdotal) impression of Wikipedia is that the objectivity of the content highly depends on the subject - particularly anything that t

My (admittedly personal & anecdotal) impression of Wikipedia is that the objectivity of the content highly depends on the subject - particularly anything that touches on more recent historical events and public/political figures continues to be of the debatable objectivity (at least on the subjects that I'm familiar with enough to notice the problem).

soundnote 3y ago
Yes. There are some remarkably high-quality articles on somewhat esoteric topics that don't directly touch on politics that I'd definitely recommend, but if it touches on politics, it's highly likely to be tainted and editorialized.
braiamp 3y ago
I would argue the opposite. There's no way to have a nuanced and constructive topic if it ever touches, either by implicit or explicit association, other sensitive topics. Example, create a list of the qualities that a country must fulfill to be socialist, compare that list with the characteristics of countries that are considered socialist, and find examples of countries that fit those characteristics and ask yourself why they are not considered socialist. At the end of the argument you notice that there are no country totally socialist, capitalist, communist or any other economic theory. Every country is a piecemeal of different concepts and policies that may or may not make sense in conjunction to everything else. But socialism/communism bad.
Rebelgecko 3y ago
Someone recently pointed out the incongruity between the English wikipedia article about the "Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion" and the Arabic Wikipedia article about the "مجزرة مستشفى المعمداني" (Baptist hospital massacre). Without sidelining the thread discussion with unproductive arguments about the conflict, I found it really fascinating how the two articles can paint such different pictures, just by picking different sources or in some cases even using the same sources but organizing the information differently (eg which disputed facts get to be in the article's infobox)
- justinbaker84 3y ago
  That is exactly what I see most of the time in high quality discourse around current events. People pick the items they want to emphasize or de-emphasize and that is what creates different narratives.
- Mr_Minderbinder 3y ago
  The Portuguese Wikipedia version of the Macau article (last I checked) reads like a historical adventure novel and is chock full of nationalist propaganda, endlessly praising certain officers and soldiers for their "bravery" and service to "national prestige".

soundnote 3y ago

Yes. There are some remarkably high-quality articles on somewhat esoteric topics that don't directly touch on politics that I'd definitely recommend, but if it touches on politics, it's highly likely to be tainted and editorialized.

braiamp 3y ago

I would argue the opposite. There's no way to have a nuanced and constructive topic if it ever touches, either by implicit or explicit association, other sensitive topics. Example, create a list of the qualities that a country must fulfill to be socialist, compare that list with the characteristics of countries that are considered socialist, and find examples of countries that fit those characteristics and ask yourself why they are not considered socialist. At the end of the argument you notice that there are no country totally socialist, capitalist, communist or any other economic theory. Every country is a piecemeal of different concepts and policies that may or may not make sense in conjunction to everything else. But socialism/communism bad.

Rebelgecko 3y ago

Someone recently pointed out the incongruity between the English wikipedia article about the "Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion" and the Arabic Wikipedia article about the "مجزرة مستشفى المعمداني" (Baptist hospital massacre). Without sidelining the thread discussion with unproductive arguments about the conflict, I found it really fascinating how the two articles can paint such different pictures, just by picking different sources or in some cases even using the same sources but organizing the information differently (eg which disputed facts get to be in the article's infobox)

justinbaker84 3y ago
That is exactly what I see most of the time in high quality discourse around current events. People pick the items they want to emphasize or de-emphasize and that is what creates different narratives.
Mr_Minderbinder 3y ago
The Portuguese Wikipedia version of the Macau article (last I checked) reads like a historical adventure novel and is chock full of nationalist propaganda, endlessly praising certain officers and soldiers for their "bravery" and service to "national prestige".