Comment on They use to tell us we couldnt trust Wikipedia. Now we know. Wikipedia is the only website you can trust.

• intensely_human@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  plenty of wild claims not at all supported by their citation

  Can you show some examples of this?

  source

  • null@slrpnk.net ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Nice.

    source
  • Daft_ish@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Lol this guy is getting ready to edit some articles.

    source
• 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.

  source

  • 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.

    source

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      So you’d categorize it as hateful right wing bullshit if someone mentions that there as violence or criminal activity at BLM protests?

      Why would that be hateful? Or right wing? Or anything other than just a description of what happened?

      source

      • Mudface@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Exactly

        source
      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You can have violence at a largely peaceful protest, as long as it is … largely peaceful.

        Which they were, the majority ended peacefully and only a handful were violent.

        So what Wikipedia did was state the facts. You can disagree with those facts, but you would be wrong.

        source
  • 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.

    source

    • Mudface@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

      Whoever said that should step out of their bubble and have a look around once in awhile

      source