25 Years of Wikipedia

Post by joering2 » Fri, Jan 16, 2026, 2:40 PM UTC

rand846633 wrote: post #432

joering2 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, thanks for the video actually. For a long time I felt he was complete jerk but I felt it was maybe biased propaganda. The mere fact he couldn't answer a basic question and explain for all those who don't know, but rather stormed out like a 4 year old child, only proves what I felt about him prior.

Your comment is a great example of someone deciding on a conclusion first, then backfilling a justification using minimal evidence—in this case, a single data point—to validate an existing suspicion or bias. With that standard, you can make virtually any public or semi-public figure look bad if you’re willing to cherry-pick a small enough slice of information.

Post by cindyllm » Fri, Jan 16, 2026, 2:56 PM UTC

nephihaha wrote: post #443

tb_technical wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The remote viewing article keeps being reverted as pseudoscientific when original research conducted by the CIA is cited. Such citations are removed swiftly. Any changes are denied or rolled back. The rationale is that, even though the documents themselves are a primary source from an organization that poured significant resources into researching the phenomenon of remote viewing, the individual posting the declassif…

They have a bee in their bonnet about pseudoscience and paranormal subject matter. It has never dawned on some of them that you can take an interest in a subject without believing it, or endorsing it. As I said elsewhere, hoaxers and fraudsters are interesting figures in their own right. With something like remote viewing, it is undeniable that the USA, USSR and PRC all conducted research into it during the Cold War,…

Post by nephihaha » Fri, Jan 16, 2026, 3:09 PM UTC

wintermutestwin wrote: post #271

advisedwang wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible to write completely neutrally. Editorial decisions like what information to include or exclude, what sources to cite, what order to present information in, what illustrations to use cannot be avoided and inherently present some kind of narrative.

It absolutely is possible to write completely neutrally. All it takes is for the writer to be aware/honest of their biases and to have a goal of achieving a neutral perspective. Of course the goal of most writing is explicitly to not be neutral.

Post by sequoia » Fri, Jan 16, 2026, 3:54 PM UTC

richardfeynman wrote: post #374

sequoia wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is so crazy. How does this accord with wikipedia's NOR & NPV stances? This is a case of "if you abandon your convictions when it's inconvenient, you never really had convictions in the first place."

This whole affair should get much more attention. If one topic on Wikipedia can be so manipulated, any topic on Wikipedia can, and it's no longer a reliable source of knowledge. I hope The Wikimedia Foundation can get its act together, and I admire the courage of Jimmy Wales for speaking up about this, but I've also stopped donating. I want no part of this.

Post by dlubarov » Fri, Jan 16, 2026, 5:14 PM UTC

GuB-42 wrote: post #429

richardfeynman wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are getting bad information. The Wikipedia pages on those specific topics (Ukraine, Gaza, BLM) is known to be have been manipulated by groups of editors acting in coordination to advance political narratives.

Is there a single source that is not manipulated on these topics? For example in Ukraine, it is very obvious that both western mainstream media and Russian mainstream media are little more than propaganda for their respective camps. The good thing with Wikipedia (the English version in particular) is that both sides try to manipulate it, in addition to those who really want to say the truth, so in the end, it is rela…