3 ms·

Has anyone else noticed how the articles for certain topics are written in a different style from how they once were? For example while reading about the Russia

Has anyone else noticed how the articles for certain topics are written in a different style from how they once were? For example while reading about the Russian Civil War I came upon the article for the "Jewish Bolshevism" conspiracy theory, which was in vogue amongst the White movement. The current article now says explicitly that it is false, whereas older versions (pre-2018) just described what the theory was. I also see this a lot on political articles, you will now read "x falsely claimed y" or "x falsely accused y". The same articles written in the old style, if they exist, always omit the "falsely", they never make a truth judgement within the article body. I for one do not appreciate being preached to in such an awkward and heavy handed way especially in politically fraught and controversial topics where the basis of this judgement is often nothing better than a news report. As for the conspiracy theories, Wikipedia is feigning knowledge and authority it does not possess, as it is in fact more difficult and often impossible to disprove such theories than it would be to do the contrary. I often find that Encyclopaedia Britannica handles these topics more elegantly, they simply say what it is and leave it at that.

gunsle 3y ago
100%. I have noticed this in a ton of contested topics. It will often make some kind of judgement on the topic nowadays, which is not what I want out of Wikipedia. It’s my biggest issue with mainstream media as well. I don’t need your opinion on what happened, just give me the facts. But at least articles in the NYT or other media outlets are attributed to the author. With Wikipedia, there is no author to attribute the opinion/bias to, which makes it far more nefarious in my opinion. For the longest time, Wikipedia simply presented facts, with sources, and allowed the user to make their own judgments. Nowadays, many pages are so heavily and obviously biased in one direction. A personal example I noticed is when I did research on Intelligent Design. The page for it is so heavily biased in one direction, the idea that it’s completely BS “pseudoscience.” That may be the case, but how about you let me read the article and come to that conclusion myself, rather than poison the well from the start, by attempting to bias me in one direction before I’ve even read anything beyond the summary.

gunsle 3y ago

100%. I have noticed this in a ton of contested topics. It will often make some kind of judgement on the topic nowadays, which is not what I want out of Wikipedia. It’s my biggest issue with mainstream media as well. I don’t need your opinion on what happened, just give me the facts. But at least articles in the NYT or other media outlets are attributed to the author. With Wikipedia, there is no author to attribute the opinion/bias to, which makes it far more nefarious in my opinion. For the longest time, Wikipedia simply presented facts, with sources, and allowed the user to make their own judgments. Nowadays, many pages are so heavily and obviously biased in one direction. A personal example I noticed is when I did research on Intelligent Design. The page for it is so heavily biased in one direction, the idea that it’s completely BS “pseudoscience.” That may be the case, but how about you let me read the article and come to that conclusion myself, rather than poison the well from the start, by attempting to bias me in one direction before I’ve even read anything beyond the summary.