5 ms·

I've noticed this exact same thing. And I too just gave up. People have their pet causes and they force the article to match, and normal, non-obsessed people gi

by ars 1y ago

I've noticed this exact same thing. And I too just gave up. People have their pet causes and they force the article to match, and normal, non-obsessed people give up. Any controversial topic should never be read on Wikipedia, it will not be accurate.

mothballed 1y ago
I noticed this during the election. As soon as Kamala become the contender, it was edited out that her father was described as a "marxist scholar" by a college newspaper. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&diff=1309230172&oldid=1217573879 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&...
- bakugo 1y ago
  Another great example is when the "Cultural Marxism" article was converted into "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", an entirely different article claiming that the concept of cultural marxism was actually always a "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory", complete with a section relating it to Gamergate. It's so ridiculous, it's almost funny to read. https://web.archive.org/web/20140519194937/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism https://web.archive.org/web/20140519194937/http://en.wikiped... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th...
- altcognito 1y ago
  Did you look into why? They always list the reasons. How long had it been on the page?
  - mothballed 1y ago
    It had been at least 2 years. [] Never became much of a contentious issue until Kamala was looking at the presidential nomination, from what I can tell, then suddenly there was a vicious fight to remove it based on reasoning that mysteriously didn't exist for years and years before that. [] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&diff=1217573879&oldid=1080632914 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&... Edit: at least ~4 years https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&diff=1217573879&oldid=994769654 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&...
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      Or, it wasn't important enough to merit editorial discussion prior to that.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        Flipping >Any controversial topic should never be read on Wikipedia, it will not be accurate. to >A controversial topic will become important enough to merit editorial discussion Is an interesting point. I think I will vouch you just for the genius of flipping it.
- martey 1y ago
  I think that when a wealth of other reliable sources don't describe an economist as Marxist, Wikipedia shouldn't give precedence to a single op-ed in the Stanford Daily from 1976. You're focusing on when the word "Marxist" was removed in 2024, but you might want to consider when it was added to the article (in August 2020, about two weeks after Harris was selected to be the vice presidential nominee): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&diff=prev&oldid=976078140 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&...
  - mothballed 1y ago
    You say it was added in August 2020, but the article was created in August 2020. Not much of an indictment that additional information was added sometime shortly after the article was created.
- viccis 1y ago
  They also removed a big part of her page when she was a primary candidate in 2019/2020 about a man she intentionally kept in prison despite knowing he was innocent. Wikipedia is absolutely a political battleground. Take a look at this old version of her 2019 page about Daniel Larsen [1] and compare it with her current Wikipedia page. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamala_Harris&oldid=879497175#Daniel_Larsen_case https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamala_Harris&old...
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > Wikipedia is absolutely a political battleground. Even the titles are a place of political warfare. For example, note carefully which incidents are labelled as "riots" and which as "unrest", and try to find any objective, politically neutral principle that could explain those results.
pessimizer 1y ago
> People have their pet causes People are paid whole-ass salaries to edit Wikipedia (and to become mods on Reddit.) They masquerade as (a dozen different) obsessed weirdos, but they are just normal middle-class people who are being paid to lie.
- theteapot 1y ago
  I'd love some examples of specific pages.
  - UncleSlacky 1y ago
    The "Philip Cross" controversy is relevant here, I think: https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/banning/ https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/banning/
    - tjfnvlo 1y ago
      The ArbCom is the worst of the lot: they proclaim themselves to be a supreme court, but they are closer to riot cops or a drumhead trial. See also Canceling Disputes: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-social-inquiry/article/canceling-disputes-how-social-capital-affects-the-arbitration-of-disputes-on-wikipedia/91BEE9C7E89DE234777B6FF04E82C1B9 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-social-inqui...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

by ars 1y ago

mothballed 1y ago

I noticed this during the election. As soon as Kamala become the contender, it was edited out that her father was described as a "marxist scholar" by a college newspaper. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&diff=1309230172&oldid=1217573879 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&...

bakugo 1y ago
Another great example is when the "Cultural Marxism" article was converted into "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", an entirely different article claiming that the concept of cultural marxism was actually always a "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory", complete with a section relating it to Gamergate. It's so ridiculous, it's almost funny to read. https://web.archive.org/web/20140519194937/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism https://web.archive.org/web/20140519194937/http://en.wikiped... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th...
altcognito 1y ago
Did you look into why? They always list the reasons. How long had it been on the page?
- mothballed 1y ago
  It had been at least 2 years. [] Never became much of a contentious issue until Kamala was looking at the presidential nomination, from what I can tell, then suddenly there was a vicious fight to remove it based on reasoning that mysteriously didn't exist for years and years before that. [] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&diff=1217573879&oldid=1080632914 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&... Edit: at least ~4 years https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&diff=1217573879&oldid=994769654 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&...
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    Or, it wasn't important enough to merit editorial discussion prior to that.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Flipping >Any controversial topic should never be read on Wikipedia, it will not be accurate. to >A controversial topic will become important enough to merit editorial discussion Is an interesting point. I think I will vouch you just for the genius of flipping it.
martey 1y ago
I think that when a wealth of other reliable sources don't describe an economist as Marxist, Wikipedia shouldn't give precedence to a single op-ed in the Stanford Daily from 1976. You're focusing on when the word "Marxist" was removed in 2024, but you might want to consider when it was added to the article (in August 2020, about two weeks after Harris was selected to be the vice presidential nominee): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&diff=prev&oldid=976078140 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&...
- mothballed 1y ago
  You say it was added in August 2020, but the article was created in August 2020. Not much of an indictment that additional information was added sometime shortly after the article was created.
viccis 1y ago
They also removed a big part of her page when she was a primary candidate in 2019/2020 about a man she intentionally kept in prison despite knowing he was innocent. Wikipedia is absolutely a political battleground. Take a look at this old version of her 2019 page about Daniel Larsen [1] and compare it with her current Wikipedia page. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamala_Harris&oldid=879497175#Daniel_Larsen_case https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamala_Harris&old...
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Wikipedia is absolutely a political battleground. Even the titles are a place of political warfare. For example, note carefully which incidents are labelled as "riots" and which as "unrest", and try to find any objective, politically neutral principle that could explain those results.

pessimizer 1y ago

> People have their pet causes People are paid whole-ass salaries to edit Wikipedia (and to become mods on Reddit.) They masquerade as (a dozen different) obsessed weirdos, but they are just normal middle-class people who are being paid to lie.

theteapot 1y ago
I'd love some examples of specific pages.
- UncleSlacky 1y ago
  The "Philip Cross" controversy is relevant here, I think: https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/banning/ https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/banning/
  - tjfnvlo 1y ago
    The ArbCom is the worst of the lot: they proclaim themselves to be a supreme court, but they are closer to riot cops or a drumhead trial. See also Canceling Disputes: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-social-inquiry/article/canceling-disputes-how-social-capital-affects-the-arbitration-of-disputes-on-wikipedia/91BEE9C7E89DE234777B6FF04E82C1B9 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-social-inqui...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]