Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#21

Post by joe5150 » Fri, Nov 18, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

psychphysic wrote: post #5

I 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'm confused about what you're implying has been "sanitized" from this article. there's no indication in the edit history that someone has added or removed any information about the vaccine strategy.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#22

Post by dj_gitmo » Fri, Nov 18, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

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-trending-44495696

> Political analyst and former UK British ambassador Craig Murray described the scale of Cross’s activities:

> Philip Cross” has not had one single day off from editing Wikipedia in almost five years. “He” has edited every single day from 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018. Including five Christmas Days. That’s 1,721 consecutive days of editing. 133,612 edits to Wikipedia have been made in the name of “Philip Cross” over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week. And I do not use that figuratively: Wikipedia edits are timed, and if you plot them, the timecard for “Philip Cross’s” Wikipedia activity is astonishing if it is one individual.’

https://www.mintpressnews.com/phillip-cross-the-mystery-wiki...

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#23

Post by Spivak » Fri, Nov 18, 2022, 4:41 PM UTC

psychphysic wrote: post #5

I 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 don't know what you do here. It's being omitted because the alternative is pouring fire on the campaigns by anti-lgbt groups who are trying to use the outbreak as an opportunity to spread the "gay men are pedophile groomers" narrative whenever a child catches monkeypox which when people believe this garbage manifests in real life harm.

Could you explain this whole controversy in the Wikipedia article? Yes, but doing that is also divisive so you just ignore it since it's not that important in the grand scheme of things.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#24

Post by implements » Fri, Nov 18, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

The article references https://infogalactic.com as a WP alternative.

Constrast: https://infogalactic.com/info/Graham_Linehan with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Linehan

- I think the author may have a point. Regardless of what you think about the person in question, the former seems far more encyclopaedic and neutral (though perhaps missing a necessary paragraph on his unpopular beliefs).

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#25

Post by Spivak » Fri, Nov 18, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

jscipione wrote: post #17

dangerwill wrote: post #9

Yawn, 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 comme…

Right wing views are objectively censored on social media and Wikipedia. “Idiotic rants” are valid free speech and censorship of profanity is a deflection.

It's the same with left wing views. You just don't see them because well, they're censored. What's is seemingly a uniquely right phenomenon is viewing the annoyingly centrist stuff that is allowed on the internet as left.

Like yes, it's on your left, but it's not left by any stretch of imagination.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#26

Post by jscipione » Fri, Nov 18, 2022, 4:48 PM UTC

I trust the co-founder Larry Sanger, Wikipedia is a hate site masquerading as an encyclopedia. The valid pages provide cover for the propaganda.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#27

Post by dale_glass » Fri, Nov 18, 2022, 4:50 PM UTC

jscipione wrote: post #17

dangerwill wrote: post #9

Yawn, 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 comme…

Right wing views are objectively censored on social media and Wikipedia. “Idiotic rants” are valid free speech and censorship of profanity is a deflection.

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.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#28

Post by woodruffw » Fri, Nov 18, 2022, 4:53 PM UTC

implements wrote: post #24

The article references https://infogalactic.com as a WP alternative. Constrast: https://infogalactic.com/info/Graham_Linehan with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Linehan - I think the author may have a point. Regardless of what you think about the person in question, the former seems far more encyclopaedic and neutral (though perhaps missing a necessary paragraph on his unpopular beliefs).

The counterpoint to this is that Wikipedia's article contains everything that the other one does, and also contains all of the things that Linehan is currently well known for.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#29

Post by barbariangrunge » Fri, Nov 18, 2022, 4:54 PM UTC

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 to appear objective any more. It’s like the news. I think this is becoming the commonplace on Wikipedia and I hate it

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#30

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 18, 2022, 4:55 PM UTC

implements wrote: post #24

The article references https://infogalactic.com as a WP alternative. Constrast: https://infogalactic.com/info/Graham_Linehan with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Linehan - I think the author may have a point. Regardless of what you think about the person in question, the former seems far more encyclopaedic and neutral (though perhaps missing a necessary paragraph on his unpopular beliefs).

[deleted]