Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

battlepenguin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 105 posts

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#61

Post by yeet_yeet_yeet »

mch82 wrote: post #48

If you feel there is a problem with unsubstantiated claims on the page, please edit the page and add “citation needed” tags to those claims. Here’s how to add them, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed If the overall article needs more citations then you can edit the page and apply the “more citations needed” tag, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:More_citations_need... Here’s an overview…

Counterargument: none of these work if the page is edit-protected. There you just have to trust that the admins with edit access are acting in good faith. From my experience, they usually do, though.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#62

Post by LordDragonfang »

Let's look at one of the suggested alternatives this blog post endorses.

First one on the list, "Wikispooks". Interestingly, Wikipedia does not have an article on Wikispooks, but Wikispooks does have an article about Wikipedia!

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Wikipedia

It seems to be headlined with with subpages for their concerns about Wikipedia. Let's see:

   Wikipedia/Hasbara | Systematic gatekeeping for Jewish interest on Wikipedia
Oh dear.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#63

Post by ccn0p »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #56
LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we love Wikipedia and all the abuses bother us more than we benefit from a momentary partisan edge.

Small potatoes when at the end of the day wikipedia is one of the few great websites we have left. No ads, tracking, or megacorps. Plenty of transparency.

There's a collective of thought police massaging a lot of the content to convey a certain narrative and it's all done under the veil of "transparent community-driven moderation".

I wouldn't be surprised if much of this effort is done by the megacorps you claim aren't involved.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#64

Post by giraffe_lady »

jscipione wrote: post #46
giraffe_lady wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ya gotta source on that one buddy? I remain skeptical that there even is such a thing as "objectively" on this subject, but every time I see someone trying to look into or tally this up the main social media platforms are slightly-to-somewhat more tolerant of fringe right views than they are fringe left. A confounder here is that social media inherits a lot of american political bias, and america has no mainstream le…

Fact checks are biased against conservative views. Warning labels for left wing political ideas like global warming are attached to posts on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube which are patronizing and censorious. A quick search found dozens of examples that backup my point but perhaps a source you might accept showing Conservative censorship comes from Pew Research: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/08/19/most-ameri…

> Fact checks are biased against conservative views.

This is literally that old joke that "reality has a liberal bias" right? I do agree.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#65

Post by woodruffw »

implements wrote: post #58
dsr_ wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cess pits are useful. Infogalactic, not so much. Complaining that Wikipedia is a source of propaganda and then citing Infogalactic as a balance is a mistake on the order of comparing Reuters and the Babylon Bee. I refer you to https://infogalactic.com/info/Bibhorr

I was specifically citing the contrast between the two articles. I know little of IG, but IG’s is what I’d expect an encyclopaedic article on this subject to look like, with (as I said) the inclusion of a paragraph about his views on sex and gender. WP’s puts his views (ideologically slanted as anti-trans rather than as he sees them gender critical ) front and centre, and thereby characterises him as a bad person. Ma…

The "anti-trans" label is a rejection of false balance, not a particular ideological stance. It's roughly in line with Wikipedia's broader policy of rejecting "softening" labels that groups use to obscure their positions. Compare, for example, the white supremacists who call themselves "race realists."

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#66

Post by yeet_yeet_yeet »

barbariangrunge wrote: post #29

Not just political. Half the articles I read are spun like pr pieces lately, at least when it comes to organizations and people (even dead people) Random one I read last night > The realization that Fitzgerald had improved as a novelist to point that Gatsby was a masterwork was immediately evident to certain members of the literary world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._Scott_Fitzgerald Editors aren’t even trying…

The quality of the topic directly correlates with the quality of editors it attracts.

So of course The Great Gatsby is going to have a terrible article. Because it's a miserable book

If you care so much about The Great Gatsby, then you should invest your time improving the article.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#67

Post by dale_glass »

0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #55
dale_glass wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech has no place on Wikipedia. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, and to summarize the contents of primary sources, not a way for specific people to spread their opinions.

I think this is highlighting an important point. People seem to be using different definitions of "free speech." It appears one side is arguing against what we might call "Free Speech (tm)" while others are arguing in favor of the moral/ethical principle of not restricting the free exchange of ideas. Thus the two sides end up talking past each other.

I'm not sure what is "Free Speech (tm)", but I'd say neither version belongs on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of facts, not of self-expression. Eg, we see here on the front page that Fred Brooks passed away on Nov 18, 2022. That's either a fact or it isn't. If it is a fact, then that's what his article should contain.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#68

Post by cool_dude85 »

r721 wrote: post #59
cool_dude85 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok - but they don't claim to be otherwise (except state-backed, I guess). That doesn't make the factual claims in the GP's post false. If you ever catch them getting into wiki edit wars you can hold them up as an example of political propaganda on wikipedia too.

The crux of their problem with "Philip Cross" is not the amount of his edits (he could be a disabled person without other hobbies after all), but that he fact-checks pro-authoritarian propaganda (and that's why this was reported by "Russian state-owned outlets Sputnik and RT" - quote from BBC story).

The crux of the GP's comment is a specific example of a high-profile political propagandist on Wikipedia, whom the poster specifically ran into. I think your characterization of the "guy", that he "fact-checks pro-authoritarian propaganda", is just a positive rephrasing of "political propagandist."

It doesn't seem relevant what George Galloway and Mint Press News' problem with "Philip Cross" is, just whether the evidence they present that he is an extremely prolific editor is true (seems to be the case). It seems to be up to your personal judgment whether you think this strongly implies he's not an individual or not. Certainly it's relevant information supporting the claim that he's not.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#69

Post by yeet_yeet_yeet »

ccn0p wrote: post #63
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small potatoes when at the end of the day wikipedia is one of the few great websites we have left. No ads, tracking, or megacorps. Plenty of transparency.

There's a collective of thought police massaging a lot of the content to convey a certain narrative and it's all done under the veil of "transparent community-driven moderation". I wouldn't be surprised if much of this effort is done by the megacorps you claim aren't involved.

Could you provide an example?
Post reply on HN