Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#101

Post by ccn0p » Sat, Nov 19, 2022, 8:03 PM UTC

yeet_yeet_yeet wrote: post #69

ccn0p wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

As the article of this post points out Larry Sanger is pretty vocal about how biased the content is and how changes to try and provide any semblance of a fair and balanced perspective are edited out of existence oftentimes by small numbers of people.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#102

Post by plaguepilled » Sun, Nov 20, 2022, 2:47 AM UTC

illuminerdy wrote: post #94

plaguepilled wrote: post #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 fun…

> "In fact, in terms of avoiding misinformation, Pool is as inadequate for the task as citing Ben Shapiro or Alex Jones." Or any of the numerous corporate media (MSNBC, NY TIMES, CNN, FOX NEWS, etc.) that have clearly been spreading misinformation for donkey's years.

I did not mention legacy media on purpose.

I said "as" inadequate. The constructed narratives and data cherrypicking of fringe entertainers like Shapiro and Jones are more frequent and more damaging than the selective reporting and factual confusions of mainstream media. The financial motivations are also slightly different as legacy media is impacted by different billionaire spending vs political infotainers.

Or more plainly: the point was not to say "aha, see, Pool and Shapiro and Jones are the ONLY sources of misinformation, and by omitting, say, the BBC, I think its fine to watch them because they are definitely trustworthy*" - I was saying the three mentioned infotainers are all on the same level. That's an important distinction.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#103

Post by pelasaco » Sun, Nov 20, 2022, 7:31 PM UTC

dj_gitmo wrote: post #22

For an example of a biased and probably state-backed Wikipedia editor, see the example of Philip Cross. I very casually edit Wikipedia, a few times a year, and I within an hour of certain changes ran into this "individual". Cross is almost certainly a team of people, and they didn't fully remove my edits, but it was very clear that certain topics are heavily monitored and shaped. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trendi…

I can imagine that who controls or enforce what is posted on Wikipedia, controls at least partially the narrative. How often is wikipedia used as fact check?

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#104

Post by pelasaco » Sun, Nov 20, 2022, 8:04 PM UTC

dj_gitmo wrote: post #22

For an example of a biased and probably state-backed Wikipedia editor, see the example of Philip Cross. I very casually edit Wikipedia, a few times a year, and I within an hour of certain changes ran into this "individual". Cross is almost certainly a team of people, and they didn't fully remove my edits, but it was very clear that certain topics are heavily monitored and shaped. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trendi…

reading your comment, brought me to the following article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33684686 (october, 22, The Hunt for Wikipedia's Disinformation Moles)

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#105

Post by airhangerf15 » Tue, Nov 22, 2022, 6:51 PM UTC

spacemadness wrote: post #19

This from a site that brings you such nuggets of wisdom like In the past few years, I’ve become increasingly more aware at how conservatives will simply state the facts, or praise what they appreciate, when an ideological adversary dies. In contrast, progressives and our legacy media will often write horrific hit pieces when someone on the opposite end of the spectrum passes away. No bias there at all.

You could put the entire thing in the context he framed it in:

> I was living in Wellington, New Zealand when Margaret Thatcher died. Some people I knew threw a party at Hotel Bristol, a pub on Cuba Street. I knew nothing about Thatcher, but I assumed she must have been pretty bad if friends of mine were singing “Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead” in her wake. Today, activist still literally piss on her grave1.

> Years later in Seattle, I worked with a British woman who grew up under Thatcher. She was horrified when people celebrated the death of someone who was an inspiration to many young women all over the United Kingdom. In the past few years, I’ve become increasingly more aware at how conservatives will simply state the facts, or praise what they appreciate, when an ideological adversary dies.

If the author hung out with a bunch of people and observed this happening, and then later talked to a British woman who gave him a different perspective, can you at least see why that bias developed? I mean ... his friends threw a party when a prime minister they probably weren't even alive for died.