Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda
battlepenguin.com
Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda
1–10 of 105 posts
Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda
#2> Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda
> Although the free online encyclopedia is good at general information about broad topics, it’s terribly inaccurate for anything political, contentions or controversial.
No. Who would have thought ?
Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda
#3> Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda > Although the free online encyclopedia is good at general information about broad topics, it’s terribly inaccurate for anything political, contentions or controversial. No. Who would have thought ?
Shocking to learn there’s bias in user curated content on the internet.
Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda
#4> Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda > Although the free online encyclopedia is good at general information about broad topics, it’s terribly inaccurate for anything political, contentions or controversial. No. Who would have thought ?
Shocking to learn there’s bias in user curated content on the internet.
All content is user-curated, it's just a matter of whether those users are corporations, random people, etc
Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda
#5I do enjoy reading the Wikipedia article on particular hot button topics.
And medical articles are also very frequently biased/agenda driven.
Often it's a complete fantasy omitting any real world painful facts.
I'm easily entertained but a recent one from a week ago was the article on Monkeypox outbreak within the UK[0]. The current UK strategy from the likes of PHE is to vaccinate gay & bisexual men.
It's been a sore topic in the UK, but literally no mention in the article.
The NHS article mentions it [1].
So the world's most popular encyclopaedia, sanitizer its 'truth'.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_monkeypox_outbreak_in_t...
Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda
#6> Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda > Although the free online encyclopedia is good at general information about broad topics, it’s terribly inaccurate for anything political, contentions or controversial. No. Who would have thought ?
Sadly it's far more pervasive than just political content.
Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda
#7I do enjoy reading the Wikipedia article on particular hot button topics. And medical articles are also very frequently biased/agenda driven. Often it's a complete fantasy omitting any real world painful facts. I'm easily entertained but a recent one from a week ago was the article on Monkeypox outbreak within the UK[0]. The current UK strategy from the likes of PHE is to vaccinate gay & bisexual men. It's been a sor…
>I do enjoy reading the Wikipedia article on particular hot button topics.
Read the "Talk" page too on those
Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda
#8whatever the merits of this particular claim, the vulnerability of Wikipedia to subversion should be pretty clear for all of us. If you were NatSec it would be a simple matter to recruit or train a few editors to focus on and continually update / amend a contested topic. Even KPI's could be pretty simple to manage - 'ensure mentions of [insert targeted country] always carries [insert pejorative Y]'
Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda
#9Yawn, yet another right winger claiming that their terrible views are unpopular because of censorship when really its because most people simply disagree.
See also, them advocating to read hidden/downvoted comments because "There is a wealth of information found in views that are not widely held or considered controversial.". https://battlepenguin.com/tech/read-from-the-bottom/ Anyone who reads hidden/downvoted comments on social media knows that the vast majority are just unhinged idiotic rants or a stream of slurs.
Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda
#10>I posted dude defending himself on Tim Pool's platform
There is half your problem. Tim Pool generally is not a valid journalistic source. He regularly fails to fact check, citing inflammatory rhetoric in the process for a double whammy of bad journalism.
In fact, in terms of avoiding misinformation, Pool is as inadequate for the task as citing Ben Shapiro or Alex Jones.
While I agree that Wikimedia should not be funding non-Wikipedia activities with funds raised through Wikipedia, that does not mean hit pieces like this get to start being sloppy without recourse.