5 ms·

> It was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an activist manual or propaganda organ but in many ways it has turned into the latter. Can you give examples where

by mcv 1y ago

> It was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an activist manual or propaganda organ but in many ways it has turned into the latter. Can you give examples where it's an activist manual or a propaganda organ? My impression is that everything is well-sourced and fairly reliable. At least, more so than the vast majority of information sources on the Web. Although I suppose on some level, there is something inherently left-wing about a free, common, public source of information that's accessible and editable by anyone, whereas conservatives would probably prefer to privatize and commercialize it. But I guess it's good that conservatives also see the value it in.

hagbard_c 1y ago
I can give you some links to articles discussing the problems with biased Wikipedia articles which should answer any questions you have on this subject. If you want examples you an just look for anything related to the current US administration for a good start. https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ https://www.allsides.com/blog/wikipedia-biased https://www.allsides.com/blog/wikipedia-biased As to the claim that Wikipedia articles are 'well-sourced and fairly reliable' this is true for articles which are not in any way related to politics but misleading or sometimes even downright false where it concerns politically charged subjects, partly due to the (ab)use of the 'Perennial Sources' list which in for the most only allows sources which abide to the 'progressive' narrative. By banning sources which do not follow the narrative it is difficult to sometimes impossible to add corrections to biased articles since those corrections relate to facts only published on such sites. This often leads to lengthy discussions on the Talk pages for those articles where editors defend their deletion of such corrections by claiming the sources are banned or untrustworthy - this based on the Perennial Sources list [1] which lists heavily biased propagandist sources like MSNBC, ABC, CNN, Al Jazeera, SPLC, ADL, the Atlantic and many others as 'reliable'. In this way Wikipedia treats sources like pseudo-democratic countries treat parties: just ban the parties and candidates which don't tow the line and let the world marvel at your party or candidate 'winning' every election 'fair and square'. The problem with Wikipedia's bias is very well known, just point a search engine at the question 'does wikipedia have a political bias' (or something along those lines) for examples. Articles on politically charged subjects - and there seem to be more and more of those - end up like talking points for the desired narrative instead of informative overviews of the subject matter. Such articles are then used as 'proof' of the position espoused in the narrative, as 'teaching material' to further the narrative, as input for LLM training runs which leads to those models ending up being more biased and more. Yes, Wikipedia has a significant political/ideological bias towards the 'left' or 'progressive' side. As to there being something 'left-wing' about a 'free, common, public source of information that is accessible and editable by anyone' I beg to differ. I consider this to be neither left-wing nor right-wing, liberal nor libertarian. Where ideology comes in to play is when someone with an ideological bias starts removing viewpoints which do not fit some desired narrative, especially when this is done in an organised fashion so as to crowd out dissenting viewpoints. As it stands now on Wikipedia it is those with a left-wing bias who are largely responsible for such activities. I won't claim that there is something inherently left-wing about the desire to silence those with dissenting views because I know this not to be true. I do claim this is inherently authoritarian and that this behaviour is what has dragged down Wikipedia. It would be a good thing for those in charge of keeping the project alive to realise that it stands or falls by its general reliability which has been severely affected by the actions of these activist editors. A long-ish answer but that's because I've been around Wikipedia for a long time - since its inception - and consider it a damn shame that the project has been subject to ideological capture. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
- suzdude 1y ago
  When Education, Journalism, Knowledge, Science and Fact Finding are no longer valued by "conservatives", why would you be surprised or upset that an organization which values those very things is "left" in your point of view?
  - hagbard_c 1y ago
    This is a bit of a pointless discussion but I'll have a go at your points anyway: > When Education... Education versus indoctrination seems to be the difference in view here. Notice the downward trend in educational outcomes and relate that to the 'progressive' dominance in education. > Journalism More or less the same as above, there is a difference between a journalist and a peddler of agitprop. Most of what goes for 'journalism' in the legacy media falls under the latter instead of the former while the 'new' media mostly lacks the means to do 'real journalism'. > Knowledge See above and realise that the term 'different ways of knowing' and the pointless discussions on things like 'indigenous knowledge' and 'standpoint epistemology' are things stemming from the 'progressive' side. > Science It is getting quite repetitive but there is a difference between science as in the process of applying the scientific method to gain insight and knowledge and Science™ as a producer of dogma. Ask your latest supreme court justice if she can define what a woman is and you'll soon understand the difference. > Fact Finding Rinse and repeat, it is the 'progressive' side which uses terms like 'my truth' and 'your truth'. What you're summing up is not a 'difference between left and right' but the result of a thorough indoctrination by one of the extremes into thinking 'the other side' is comprised of drooling idiots. For a true comparison you should remove the opinions of the extreme outliers on the 'left' and 'right' and soon you'll find that there is not that much difference between rational people who happen to lean more towards the right or left. The one problem here is that it has become practice on the 'progressive' side to 'center the margin' [1] in an appeal to 'support the oppressed in their struggle against the oppressors' which then creates new marginal opinions which in turn are centred until it is margins all the way down. For perspective, I'm a European - Dutchman living in Sweden, both relatively 'progressive' countries. It used to be that we considered American politics to consist of two parties, one right (R) and once centre-right (D) compared to the wider spectrum seen here with everything from Lenin-Stalin-Mao-hailing communists to blood-and-soil ultranationalists and everything in between. This has changed, especially in the last 15 years due to the radical left-wing slide of the 'democratic' party which now voices opinions which are comparable to those of European socialist parties. I suspect they do not represent the political opinion of the majority of their potential voter base and with that I don´t see these opinions becoming mainstream other than in the 'deep blue' cities but the American left is now in many ways comparable to and in some ways more radical than their European 'comrades'. Reading or listening to speeches by people like JFK or Bill Clinton in the current situation makes you wonder whether they are in the same party as Obama or Harris or any of the grandstanding loudmouths like Jeffries or 'the squad'. It is quite remarkable how a country so big with so much potential has managed to produce a political class so dysfunctional and incompetent. Not that we're much better off here in Europe mind you but that is another discussion for another day. [1] search for the terms or peruse some of the following for an idea of what 'centring the margin' leads to: https://kalamu.com/neogriot/2015/03/21/pov-bell-hooks-feminist-theory-from-margin-to-center-and-the-modern-left-a-marxist-critique/ https://kalamu.com/neogriot/2015/03/21/pov-bell-hooks-femini..., https://primarygoals.com/teams/models/center-margin/ https://primarygoals.com/teams/models/center-margin/, https://www.newamerica.org/family-centered-social-policy/policy-papers/centering-margins/ https://www.newamerica.org/family-centered-social-policy/pol..., https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty/publications/Arrival%20at%20the%20Margins.pdf https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty/publications/Arrival%20..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Theory:_From_Margin_to_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Theory:_From_Margin_t..., https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3003214/1/Naegler_and_Salman_2016_Cultural_Criminology_and_Gender_Consciousness.pdf https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3003214/1/Naegler_and_..., ... - the list is endless

by mcv 1y ago

hagbard_c 1y ago

I can give you some links to articles discussing the problems with biased Wikipedia articles which should answer any questions you have on this subject. If you want examples you an just look for anything related to the current US administration for a good start. https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ https://www.allsides.com/blog/wikipedia-biased https://www.allsides.com/blog/wikipedia-biased As to the claim that Wikipedia articles are 'well-sourced and fairly reliable' this is true for articles which are not in any way related to politics but misleading or sometimes even downright false where it concerns politically charged subjects, partly due to the (ab)use of the 'Perennial Sources' list which in for the most only allows sources which abide to the 'progressive' narrative. By banning sources which do not follow the narrative it is difficult to sometimes impossible to add corrections to biased articles since those corrections relate to facts only published on such sites. This often leads to lengthy discussions on the Talk pages for those articles where editors defend their deletion of such corrections by claiming the sources are banned or untrustworthy - this based on the Perennial Sources list [1] which lists heavily biased propagandist sources like MSNBC, ABC, CNN, Al Jazeera, SPLC, ADL, the Atlantic and many others as 'reliable'. In this way Wikipedia treats sources like pseudo-democratic countries treat parties: just ban the parties and candidates which don't tow the line and let the world marvel at your party or candidate 'winning' every election 'fair and square'. The problem with Wikipedia's bias is very well known, just point a search engine at the question 'does wikipedia have a political bias' (or something along those lines) for examples. Articles on politically charged subjects - and there seem to be more and more of those - end up like talking points for the desired narrative instead of informative overviews of the subject matter. Such articles are then used as 'proof' of the position espoused in the narrative, as 'teaching material' to further the narrative, as input for LLM training runs which leads to those models ending up being more biased and more. Yes, Wikipedia has a significant political/ideological bias towards the 'left' or 'progressive' side. As to there being something 'left-wing' about a 'free, common, public source of information that is accessible and editable by anyone' I beg to differ. I consider this to be neither left-wing nor right-wing, liberal nor libertarian. Where ideology comes in to play is when someone with an ideological bias starts removing viewpoints which do not fit some desired narrative, especially when this is done in an organised fashion so as to crowd out dissenting viewpoints. As it stands now on Wikipedia it is those with a left-wing bias who are largely responsible for such activities. I won't claim that there is something inherently left-wing about the desire to silence those with dissenting views because I know this not to be true. I do claim this is inherently authoritarian and that this behaviour is what has dragged down Wikipedia. It would be a good thing for those in charge of keeping the project alive to realise that it stands or falls by its general reliability which has been severely affected by the actions of these activist editors. A long-ish answer but that's because I've been around Wikipedia for a long time - since its inception - and consider it a damn shame that the project has been subject to ideological capture. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...

suzdude 1y ago
When Education, Journalism, Knowledge, Science and Fact Finding are no longer valued by "conservatives", why would you be surprised or upset that an organization which values those very things is "left" in your point of view?
- hagbard_c 1y ago
  This is a bit of a pointless discussion but I'll have a go at your points anyway: > When Education... Education versus indoctrination seems to be the difference in view here. Notice the downward trend in educational outcomes and relate that to the 'progressive' dominance in education. > Journalism More or less the same as above, there is a difference between a journalist and a peddler of agitprop. Most of what goes for 'journalism' in the legacy media falls under the latter instead of the former while the 'new' media mostly lacks the means to do 'real journalism'. > Knowledge See above and realise that the term 'different ways of knowing' and the pointless discussions on things like 'indigenous knowledge' and 'standpoint epistemology' are things stemming from the 'progressive' side. > Science It is getting quite repetitive but there is a difference between science as in the process of applying the scientific method to gain insight and knowledge and Science™ as a producer of dogma. Ask your latest supreme court justice if she can define what a woman is and you'll soon understand the difference. > Fact Finding Rinse and repeat, it is the 'progressive' side which uses terms like 'my truth' and 'your truth'. What you're summing up is not a 'difference between left and right' but the result of a thorough indoctrination by one of the extremes into thinking 'the other side' is comprised of drooling idiots. For a true comparison you should remove the opinions of the extreme outliers on the 'left' and 'right' and soon you'll find that there is not that much difference between rational people who happen to lean more towards the right or left. The one problem here is that it has become practice on the 'progressive' side to 'center the margin' [1] in an appeal to 'support the oppressed in their struggle against the oppressors' which then creates new marginal opinions which in turn are centred until it is margins all the way down. For perspective, I'm a European - Dutchman living in Sweden, both relatively 'progressive' countries. It used to be that we considered American politics to consist of two parties, one right (R) and once centre-right (D) compared to the wider spectrum seen here with everything from Lenin-Stalin-Mao-hailing communists to blood-and-soil ultranationalists and everything in between. This has changed, especially in the last 15 years due to the radical left-wing slide of the 'democratic' party which now voices opinions which are comparable to those of European socialist parties. I suspect they do not represent the political opinion of the majority of their potential voter base and with that I don´t see these opinions becoming mainstream other than in the 'deep blue' cities but the American left is now in many ways comparable to and in some ways more radical than their European 'comrades'. Reading or listening to speeches by people like JFK or Bill Clinton in the current situation makes you wonder whether they are in the same party as Obama or Harris or any of the grandstanding loudmouths like Jeffries or 'the squad'. It is quite remarkable how a country so big with so much potential has managed to produce a political class so dysfunctional and incompetent. Not that we're much better off here in Europe mind you but that is another discussion for another day. [1] search for the terms or peruse some of the following for an idea of what 'centring the margin' leads to: https://kalamu.com/neogriot/2015/03/21/pov-bell-hooks-feminist-theory-from-margin-to-center-and-the-modern-left-a-marxist-critique/ https://kalamu.com/neogriot/2015/03/21/pov-bell-hooks-femini..., https://primarygoals.com/teams/models/center-margin/ https://primarygoals.com/teams/models/center-margin/, https://www.newamerica.org/family-centered-social-policy/policy-papers/centering-margins/ https://www.newamerica.org/family-centered-social-policy/pol..., https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty/publications/Arrival%20at%20the%20Margins.pdf https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty/publications/Arrival%20..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Theory:_From_Margin_to_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Theory:_From_Margin_t..., https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3003214/1/Naegler_and_Salman_2016_Cultural_Criminology_and_Gender_Consciousness.pdf https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3003214/1/Naegler_and_..., ... - the list is endless