6 ms·

Reason and truth are the enemy of authoritarian regimes. They want you to believe that truth is subjective. Truth and reason provide alternative legitimacy to a

Reason and truth are the enemy of authoritarian regimes. They want you to believe that truth is subjective. Truth and reason provide alternative legitimacy to authority. If nothing is true, there is no basis on which to judge those in power. There is a long legacy of authoritarian regimes attacking curious places, universities, historians, museums, books or any institution that grounds itself in reality which provides you a way to reasonably criticize authoritarian actions. Many authortarian regimes will "purge" as many of the country's intellectuals as they are able. Wikipedia is absolutely the enemy of this administration and authoritarians everywhere in the world would love to see it's demise or collapse into chaos. Whether the Wikipedia page for Israel says Gaza is a genocide or not, or that it's an ongoing debate matters. It matters because it influences what people think and therefore what they consent to or what they deem worth fighting for or applying resources to and that goes for just about any issue out there. If you can't read about the suffering that racism has caused, then how bad is racism really? If there are no examples of successful labor movements, then why would you hopelessly start one?

emacsen 1y ago
Aren't you making their point though? The ADL and other Jewish organizations have pointed out that aside from articles about Israel that articles about or mention Jewish topics generally have been editing with disinformation or that made Jews out to be the aggressors. I agree with you that in order to believe in the ideals of liberal democracy that we must have a core belief in truth. And it's absolutely true that the Trump administration has taken a position that is deeply chilling on the issue of speech. It's clear they want to be the sole arbiters of what "truth" is and they want to use their power to manipulate the reality. All that said, I cannot as a Jew ignore the fact that Wikipedia is not in itself neutral, and that "more eyes" does not negate systemic bias. What I've seen as a Jew is what the true meaning of marginalized minority is, which is to say that if you are truly a minority and truly marginalized then in a vote of "truth", your reality will be dismissed if it conflicts with the vast majority, and that Jews are only 0.2% of the world population. While I brought it up, I am not debating the issue of antisemitic bias in Wikipedia[1] as anything other than an illustration of your point of objective truth being true, but also that we can't simply rely on the wisdom of the crowd to materialize that truth. To preemptively address the issue that's bound to come up when I post this- I'm not arguing that the evils of silencing the entire Wikipedia project are equal to or a fair response to Wikipedia's antisemitic bias. I do believe Wikipedia needs to address its bias problem and that's best done through internal reform. Two wrongs don't make a right, nor are two wrongs always of equal weight. [1] Firstly because my point is separate, and secondly because I've encountered the exact issues I've found in Wikipedia elsewhere, which is why I'm sure I'll be voted down.
- TRiG_Ireland 1y ago
  This is the same ADL that said that Nazi salutes are fine, but that protesting against genocide isn't? Why do we care what the ADL says about anything? They're fascist sympathisers.
  - moshegramovsky 1y ago
    It was not remotely okay that they did this, and I agree that refusing to speak out severely hurt their credibility. The next time I get a fundraising email, I'm going to tell them they can kiss something.
  - emacsen 1y ago
    Demanding moral perfection from an organization in order to believe that discrimination exists is a standard that I don't believe is fair to any group.
    - TRiG_Ireland 1y ago
      I don't demand "moral perfection", but I draw the line at overt fascism. The ADL are fascist sympathisers.
      - emacsen 1y ago
        Did you read the statement they put out later that day about Musk, or the day after? I agree this was a terrible move on the ADL's part, and there have been others, but you're essentially labeling the oldest anti-hate group "fascist" because you disagree with one statement they made. This dismisses any concerns they raise, or if someone else says the same as them, then they too must be pro-facist.
        cma 1y ago
        He also tweeted in approval of this tweet putting forward the "Jewish people planned it" antisemitic form of great replacement theory with "you have said the actual truth": > Jewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. > I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don't exactly like them too much. > You want truth said to your face, there it is. Then a bit later Musk gives the heil Hitler salute twice in a row, once facing the crowd, then turned around and gave it facing Trump. The stuff the ADL put out after the salutes was only after he added on jokes involving Nazi party members, right? Or was the one later that day before that?
moshegramovsky 1y ago
> Reason and truth are the enemy of authoritarian regimes. Truth and reason provide alternative legitimacy to authority. If nothing is true, there is no basis on which to judge those in power. Well said. Hannah Arendt wrote a great book about this, but it sounds like you might have already read it.
- hayst4ck 1y ago
  I haven't. I would imagine Timothy Snyder is an avid fan of, if not a major historian of, Hannah Arendt and I probably got that through Snyder. I had actually not heard of her specifically yet. https://history.yale.edu/news/timothy-snyder-has-been-awarded-2013-hannah-arendt-prize-political-thought https://history.yale.edu/news/timothy-snyder-has-been-awarde... Apparently Snyder received the Hannah Arendt Prize for Political Thought. He quotes her here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/04/preparing-for-an-american-reichstag-fire-how-modern-authoritarians-consolidate-power.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/04/preparing-for-an... After the Reichstag fire, political theorist Hannah Arendt wrote that “I was no longer of the opinion that one can simply be a bystander.” Courage does not mean not fearing, or not grieving. It does mean recognizing and resisting terror management right away, from the moment of the attack, precisely when it seems most difficult to do so.
timewizard 1y ago
[flagged]
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  >The existence of Wikipedia is a convenience and perhaps not one that should be given tax free status. Because it's a convenience?
txcwg002 1y ago
According to its cofounder, Wikipedia abandoned truth long ago. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
- laughingcurve 1y ago
  It’s pretty clear from this blogpost that Larry Sanger has abandoned a pursuit of truth and neutral point of view and instead does not like how reality fails to conform to his personal biases and preferences about the way the world is.
  - ruszki 1y ago
    If nothing else, the rambling about global warming and MMR vaccines makes it obvious. It’s not neutral to spread many times disproven lies. Especially how he wants to spread it, without saying that it’s not true, because that’s not neutral. He just forgot that saying that something is true is also not neutral. I understand the caution, and we need to be more cautious in today’s world. And I do in controversial topics quite frequently. For example, giving points for women during university admissions just for being women in Norway seemed outrageous. And when I feel that way, I immediately start to check its validity, especially that the article “forgot” to mention how many points. At the end they give out 1 or 2 points on a scale of 50, and not to just women but also men, where they are underrepresented. The article just lied about that we should have outrage. It’s a lie. Larry Sanger wants such lies on Wikipedia. He should be way more cautious when he’s outraged. Also 100% of people who commented under this article on Reddit should do the same.
- hayst4ck 1y ago
  What organizations, institutions, or media do you think have a greater commitment to truth, or even just a commitment to truth?
  - flanked-evergl 1y ago
    Organizations can't have commitments to truth. Only people can. And there is no mechanism that ensures that editors and admins have a commitment to truth.
xlinux 1y ago
So everything wiki mods believe is truth? What about those who never even got a chance to speak out? It's always controlled by. Winners write the history. Now Americans decide what's truth and fact
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  >Now Americans decide what's truth and fact what about evidence?
- hayst4ck 1y ago
  Wikipedia has at least 15 million articles in languages other than English and around 7 million English articles. Are you asserting that it is standard that Americans are writing and moderating all of these articles in other languages?
  - xlinux 1y ago
    In my country, one section mentions English articles (written by amercans) to prove their point.
    - orwin 1y ago
      Then your country Wikipedia admins are idiots if they accept that, as Wikipedia isn't considered a primary source on Wikipedia.
    - hayst4ck 1y ago
      Can you link an example?
seydor 1y ago
an encyclopedia is supposed to be broader than any other biased information source, so i think your last paragraph is false. people are supposed to make up their own mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia
belorn 1y ago
Wikipedia policy is verifiability and giving the reader a first step. Truth is something that the reader decide for themselves. Wikipedia are neither the enemy nor a friend for regimes or political movements. It is not the role of Wikipedia to authoritative say if the war in Gaza is an genocide. Their role is to say what reliable source has reported, which in this case has so much reliable sources talking about it that there is a dedicated article about just it. There more reliable sources are talking about a subject, and the more the subject gain notability, the more likely it will be included in Wikipedia. Editors can apply some common sense, but they are not the arbiters of truth, nor should they ever be seen as such. If a readers want simple and single truths that they can believe in then they are better served by whichever news papers that can cater to their particular world views.
matwood 1y ago
> Reason and truth are the enemy of authoritarian regimes. They want you to believe that truth is subjective. Truth and reason provide alternative legitimacy to authority. If nothing is true, there is no basis on which to judge those in power. I agree. Only thing I would add is that the 'seeking of truth' is also important. Academics get it wrong all the time, but self correction is built into the process. Finding and fixing errors is important.
psychoslave 1y ago
Totalitarian mindset is not incompatible with the notion of absolute truth. It just want to be considered the single source of truth. You can believe whatever you want as long as it leads you to always comply to the government official statements, even in your most hidden intimacy. That, is totalitarism.

emacsen 1y ago

Aren't you making their point though? The ADL and other Jewish organizations have pointed out that aside from articles about Israel that articles about or mention Jewish topics generally have been editing with disinformation or that made Jews out to be the aggressors. I agree with you that in order to believe in the ideals of liberal democracy that we must have a core belief in truth. And it's absolutely true that the Trump administration has taken a position that is deeply chilling on the issue of speech. It's clear they want to be the sole arbiters of what "truth" is and they want to use their power to manipulate the reality. All that said, I cannot as a Jew ignore the fact that Wikipedia is not in itself neutral, and that "more eyes" does not negate systemic bias. What I've seen as a Jew is what the true meaning of marginalized minority is, which is to say that if you are truly a minority and truly marginalized then in a vote of "truth", your reality will be dismissed if it conflicts with the vast majority, and that Jews are only 0.2% of the world population. While I brought it up, I am not debating the issue of antisemitic bias in Wikipedia[1] as anything other than an illustration of your point of objective truth being true, but also that we can't simply rely on the wisdom of the crowd to materialize that truth. To preemptively address the issue that's bound to come up when I post this- I'm not arguing that the evils of silencing the entire Wikipedia project are equal to or a fair response to Wikipedia's antisemitic bias. I do believe Wikipedia needs to address its bias problem and that's best done through internal reform. Two wrongs don't make a right, nor are two wrongs always of equal weight. [1] Firstly because my point is separate, and secondly because I've encountered the exact issues I've found in Wikipedia elsewhere, which is why I'm sure I'll be voted down.

TRiG_Ireland 1y ago
This is the same ADL that said that Nazi salutes are fine, but that protesting against genocide isn't? Why do we care what the ADL says about anything? They're fascist sympathisers.
- moshegramovsky 1y ago
  It was not remotely okay that they did this, and I agree that refusing to speak out severely hurt their credibility. The next time I get a fundraising email, I'm going to tell them they can kiss something.
- emacsen 1y ago
  Demanding moral perfection from an organization in order to believe that discrimination exists is a standard that I don't believe is fair to any group.
  - TRiG_Ireland 1y ago
    I don't demand "moral perfection", but I draw the line at overt fascism. The ADL are fascist sympathisers.
    - emacsen 1y ago
      Did you read the statement they put out later that day about Musk, or the day after? I agree this was a terrible move on the ADL's part, and there have been others, but you're essentially labeling the oldest anti-hate group "fascist" because you disagree with one statement they made. This dismisses any concerns they raise, or if someone else says the same as them, then they too must be pro-facist.
      - cma 1y ago
        He also tweeted in approval of this tweet putting forward the "Jewish people planned it" antisemitic form of great replacement theory with "you have said the actual truth": > Jewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. > I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don't exactly like them too much. > You want truth said to your face, there it is. Then a bit later Musk gives the heil Hitler salute twice in a row, once facing the crowd, then turned around and gave it facing Trump. The stuff the ADL put out after the salutes was only after he added on jokes involving Nazi party members, right? Or was the one later that day before that?

moshegramovsky 1y ago

> Reason and truth are the enemy of authoritarian regimes. Truth and reason provide alternative legitimacy to authority. If nothing is true, there is no basis on which to judge those in power. Well said. Hannah Arendt wrote a great book about this, but it sounds like you might have already read it.

hayst4ck 1y ago
I haven't. I would imagine Timothy Snyder is an avid fan of, if not a major historian of, Hannah Arendt and I probably got that through Snyder. I had actually not heard of her specifically yet. https://history.yale.edu/news/timothy-snyder-has-been-awarded-2013-hannah-arendt-prize-political-thought https://history.yale.edu/news/timothy-snyder-has-been-awarde... Apparently Snyder received the Hannah Arendt Prize for Political Thought. He quotes her here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/04/preparing-for-an-american-reichstag-fire-how-modern-authoritarians-consolidate-power.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/04/preparing-for-an... After the Reichstag fire, political theorist Hannah Arendt wrote that “I was no longer of the opinion that one can simply be a bystander.” Courage does not mean not fearing, or not grieving. It does mean recognizing and resisting terror management right away, from the moment of the attack, precisely when it seems most difficult to do so.

timewizard 1y ago

[flagged]

Braxton1980 1y ago
>The existence of Wikipedia is a convenience and perhaps not one that should be given tax free status. Because it's a convenience?

txcwg002 1y ago

According to its cofounder, Wikipedia abandoned truth long ago. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

laughingcurve 1y ago
It’s pretty clear from this blogpost that Larry Sanger has abandoned a pursuit of truth and neutral point of view and instead does not like how reality fails to conform to his personal biases and preferences about the way the world is.
- ruszki 1y ago
  If nothing else, the rambling about global warming and MMR vaccines makes it obvious. It’s not neutral to spread many times disproven lies. Especially how he wants to spread it, without saying that it’s not true, because that’s not neutral. He just forgot that saying that something is true is also not neutral. I understand the caution, and we need to be more cautious in today’s world. And I do in controversial topics quite frequently. For example, giving points for women during university admissions just for being women in Norway seemed outrageous. And when I feel that way, I immediately start to check its validity, especially that the article “forgot” to mention how many points. At the end they give out 1 or 2 points on a scale of 50, and not to just women but also men, where they are underrepresented. The article just lied about that we should have outrage. It’s a lie. Larry Sanger wants such lies on Wikipedia. He should be way more cautious when he’s outraged. Also 100% of people who commented under this article on Reddit should do the same.
hayst4ck 1y ago
What organizations, institutions, or media do you think have a greater commitment to truth, or even just a commitment to truth?
- flanked-evergl 1y ago
  Organizations can't have commitments to truth. Only people can. And there is no mechanism that ensures that editors and admins have a commitment to truth.

xlinux 1y ago

So everything wiki mods believe is truth? What about those who never even got a chance to speak out? It's always controlled by. Winners write the history. Now Americans decide what's truth and fact

Braxton1980 1y ago
>Now Americans decide what's truth and fact what about evidence?
hayst4ck 1y ago
Wikipedia has at least 15 million articles in languages other than English and around 7 million English articles. Are you asserting that it is standard that Americans are writing and moderating all of these articles in other languages?
- xlinux 1y ago
  In my country, one section mentions English articles (written by amercans) to prove their point.
  - orwin 1y ago
    Then your country Wikipedia admins are idiots if they accept that, as Wikipedia isn't considered a primary source on Wikipedia.
  - hayst4ck 1y ago
    Can you link an example?

seydor 1y ago

an encyclopedia is supposed to be broader than any other biased information source, so i think your last paragraph is false. people are supposed to make up their own mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia

belorn 1y ago

Wikipedia policy is verifiability and giving the reader a first step. Truth is something that the reader decide for themselves. Wikipedia are neither the enemy nor a friend for regimes or political movements. It is not the role of Wikipedia to authoritative say if the war in Gaza is an genocide. Their role is to say what reliable source has reported, which in this case has so much reliable sources talking about it that there is a dedicated article about just it. There more reliable sources are talking about a subject, and the more the subject gain notability, the more likely it will be included in Wikipedia. Editors can apply some common sense, but they are not the arbiters of truth, nor should they ever be seen as such. If a readers want simple and single truths that they can believe in then they are better served by whichever news papers that can cater to their particular world views.

matwood 1y ago

> Reason and truth are the enemy of authoritarian regimes. They want you to believe that truth is subjective. Truth and reason provide alternative legitimacy to authority. If nothing is true, there is no basis on which to judge those in power. I agree. Only thing I would add is that the 'seeking of truth' is also important. Academics get it wrong all the time, but self correction is built into the process. Finding and fixing errors is important.

psychoslave 1y ago

Totalitarian mindset is not incompatible with the notion of absolute truth. It just want to be considered the single source of truth. You can believe whatever you want as long as it leads you to always comply to the government official statements, even in your most hidden intimacy. That, is totalitarism.