No. There are plenty of articles with the “needs citations” tag.
But even of the ones that are? A LOT of people never actually read the sources and you have plenty of wild claims that are not at all supported by their citation. Plenty of “celebrities” have even talked about how it was a huge hassle to get something changed because the lie was cited… with something unrelated.
A lot of the political entries are written with a bent towards being sympathetic with leftists.
The Kyle Rittenhouse article spends a lot of time on how Rittenhouse ‘appeared in conservative media’ or ‘appeared with conservative personalities’ which is a pretty weird thing to say, if you don’t already understand the political undertones of the Kenosha riot.
When you click the article for the Kenosha riot, it’s titled ‘civil unrest in Kenosha’ and focusses a lot on what a reader would perceive as positive aims of the riot. Protesting racism and police brutality, and doesn’t focus at all on the crime, danger, guns, vandalism, arson, etc
That article mentions BLM and when you read that article it makes sure to state that BLM protests were ‘largely peaceful’ and totally misses the amount of deaths and destruction that had happened at them.
The BLM article, if written like the Rittenhouse article, should focus a fair amount in the organizations ties to Marxism, the overthrowing of capitalism and colonialism, but doesn’t.
Wikipedia articles are written and edited and maintained to push a narrative.
If you agree with the narrative, you probably like that it does this. If you disagree, you probably don’t bother reading Wikipedia very much.
The issue with sources, is that a lot of ‘sources’ for stuff like this are already heavily curated to paint a picture the editors want to put on front street.
And anything that would combat that narrative is just outright banned from the site.
A lot of citations with politically charged topics are just opinions anyway. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer or sources on the war between Palestine and isreal, for example. But if Wikipedia editors want to push propaganda for either side over the other, all they have to do is only cite pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli sources.
This is easily exploitable by editors for whatever narrative they choose to push.
Wikipedia is not an exhaustive gathering of all relevant information, it is a carefully curated propaganda machine for the editors.
Not at all. I’m responding to OP, and while my comment is informative and sourced so that other people can understand it too, I do not care at all that my in-kind response turns some people off.
Daft_ish@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Lol, everything is sourced.
nodsocket@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Image
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
No. There are plenty of articles with the “needs citations” tag.
But even of the ones that are? A LOT of people never actually read the sources and you have plenty of wild claims that are not at all supported by their citation. Plenty of “celebrities” have even talked about how it was a huge hassle to get something changed because the lie was cited… with something unrelated.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Can you show some examples of this?
null@slrpnk.net 8 months ago
Nice.
Daft_ish@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Lol this guy is getting ready to edit some articles.
Mudface@lemmy.world 8 months ago
A lot of the political entries are written with a bent towards being sympathetic with leftists.
The Kyle Rittenhouse article spends a lot of time on how Rittenhouse ‘appeared in conservative media’ or ‘appeared with conservative personalities’ which is a pretty weird thing to say, if you don’t already understand the political undertones of the Kenosha riot.
When you click the article for the Kenosha riot, it’s titled ‘civil unrest in Kenosha’ and focusses a lot on what a reader would perceive as positive aims of the riot. Protesting racism and police brutality, and doesn’t focus at all on the crime, danger, guns, vandalism, arson, etc
That article mentions BLM and when you read that article it makes sure to state that BLM protests were ‘largely peaceful’ and totally misses the amount of deaths and destruction that had happened at them.
The BLM article, if written like the Rittenhouse article, should focus a fair amount in the organizations ties to Marxism, the overthrowing of capitalism and colonialism, but doesn’t.
Wikipedia articles are written and edited and maintained to push a narrative.
If you agree with the narrative, you probably like that it does this. If you disagree, you probably don’t bother reading Wikipedia very much.
The issue with sources, is that a lot of ‘sources’ for stuff like this are already heavily curated to paint a picture the editors want to put on front street.
And anything that would combat that narrative is just outright banned from the site.
A lot of citations with politically charged topics are just opinions anyway. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer or sources on the war between Palestine and isreal, for example. But if Wikipedia editors want to push propaganda for either side over the other, all they have to do is only cite pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli sources.
This is easily exploitable by editors for whatever narrative they choose to push.
Wikipedia is not an exhaustive gathering of all relevant information, it is a carefully curated propaganda machine for the editors.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
Good point. I forgot to mention that Wikipedia editors, for all their flaws, are really good at shutting down hateful right wing bullshit.
FJW@discuss.tchncs.de 8 months ago
Well it’s the old fact that reality has a left-wing bias, as someone once put it.
Polar@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
Have you ever looked at the sources? Some pages have some insane blog spam “sources” linked.
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Lawl, 1) 25% of Wikipedia in English is unsourced
Image
lAwL 2) 77% of Wikipedia is written by 1% of its editors
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#…
RaWfL 3) once a source is credited once, it isn’t rechecked and can be used as a source on Wikipedia countless times
LmFAo 4) literally anyone saying something does not make it credible or true.
criitz@reddthat.com 8 months ago
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Not at all. I’m responding to OP, and while my comment is informative and sourced so that other people can understand it too, I do not care at all that my in-kind response turns some people off.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 8 months ago
It could even be someone purposefully poisoning the well
Daft_ish@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Rolfcopter. This guy doesn’t know how to use Wikipedia.
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
You probably learned how to use Wikipedia from Wikipedia, that’s how you got so wrong.