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

81–90 of 105 posts

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#81

Post by gencom »

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…

His views probably are anti-trans, but if you consider trans to be, approximately, claiming to be a member of the opposite sex to what you actually are, and advocating for changes in law and policy that act as if that claim is true - then this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a sociopolitical viewpoint.

To draw the distinction further, not everyone with sex dysphoria (gender dysphoria) is trans. For example, some were previously, but are now detrans. Others just deal with it without making claims of being the opposite sex.

I would contend that gender critical is a subtype of anti-trans, broadly based on an ideological rejection of gendered stereotyping. The other major subtype involves convictions based on religious beliefs. Less popular subtypes include, for example, skepticism of the consumerist aspect of trans that may follow from holding an anti-capitalist worldview.

Holding anti-trans beliefs does have connotations of being a bad thing, but this is mostly because pro-trans activists have latched onto pro-LGB activism.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#82

Post by 0xbadc0de5 »

dale_glass wrote: post #76
0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Free Speech (tm)" is what you appear to be arguing against. If I had to guess, you envision people who are vocal about free speech as holding views you disagree with. Whereas as a moral/ethical principle, you cannot have a Wikipedia without the free exchange of ideas - whether it's fact or opinion.

> "Free Speech (tm)" is what you appear to be arguing against. And what would that be? > If I had to guess, you envision people who are vocal about free speech as holding views you disagree with. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. My contention is that Wikipedia is not for "speech" at all, of any kind. Eg, this is not "free speech" in any of its meanings: "New York, often called New York City (NYC),[a] is the mos…

> This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. My contention is that Wikipedia is not for "speech" at all, of any kind.

This is exactly my point - "speech" in this context means the exchange of ideas, not taken literally as making sounds with your mouth. So perhaps my point would make more sense if you s/speech/free exchange of ideas/

Without a free exchange of ideas, how do you form a consensus of what is or is not fact?

I could argue that your NY reference is indeed free speech in that you are making a statement of fact or opinion in a public forum.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#83

Post by amiga386 »

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…

Both these articles are from 2018. It would be remiss of you not to mention the 2018 ArbCom case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...

> Philip Cross has engaged in a personalized, public, off-wiki dispute with George Galloway while simultaneously making significant content edits to George Galloway’s article over an extended period of time.

> Philip Cross has demonstrated a conflict of interest with respect to George Galloway and certain other individuals in the area of post-1978 British politics.

But also:

> There is no evidence to indicate that Philip Cross has used alternate accounts or sockpuppets to edit or support his views on-wiki, nor that he has coordinated with any other editors, outside individuals, or organizations in his editing.

ArbCom took a very dim view of Galloway's, and another Wikipedian's, attempts to "out" Cross's identity.

Ultimately, ArbCom banned Cross from doing _any_ editing on "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed". That is an enormously wide topic ban.

You can also see from his user contributions and the block log that he has been banned by admins for repeatedly defying his topic ban. A 1-week ban in August 2018, a 1-month ban in November 2021, a 3-month ban in July 2022... and now he has a PERMANENT ban since last month. He can't appeal for at least a year.

It doesn't seem like a shadowy cabal to me, it sounds like one person who does nothing but edit all day. Wikipedia has quite a few such users, and that's why there's a big list of contentious topics which are more heavily patrolled and restricted than the rest of Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Ac...

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#84

Post by throwayyy479087 »

Spivak wrote: post #23
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 doin…

It’s a very important fact and an objective source should include it. This is a great example of the article’s thesis.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#85

Post by dale_glass »

0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #82
dale_glass wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Free Speech (tm)" is what you appear to be arguing against. And what would that be? > If I had to guess, you envision people who are vocal about free speech as holding views you disagree with. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. My contention is that Wikipedia is not for "speech" at all, of any kind. Eg, this is not "free speech" in any of its meanings: "New York, often called New York City (NYC),[a] is the mos…

> This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. My contention is that Wikipedia is not for "speech" at all, of any kind. This is exactly my point - "speech" in this context means the exchange of ideas, not taken literally as making sounds with your mouth. So perhaps my point would make more sense if you s/speech/free exchange of ideas/ Without a free exchange of ideas, how do you form a consensus of what is or is not fact?…

> Without a free exchange of ideas, how do you form a consensus of what is or is not fact?

By having free exchange of ideas allowed outside of Wikipedia, and forbidden on Wikipedia itself.

I'm saying the free exchange of ideas doesn't belong on Wikipedia pages specifically.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#86

Post by implements »

woodruffw wrote: post #80
implements wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the stated rationale, but with respect I disagree that it isn’t ideological or slanted. In my experience in the UK people who describe themselves as gender critical are older left-leaning (majority lesbian) women and hold their long held (1970s onwards) beliefs in good faith and from a position of pro-female / pro same sex-attracted rights, and resistance to gender as a useful social construct. They’re not ant…

> They’re not anti-trans by primary motivation - it’s that the logical consequence of what they believe about the nature of sex and gender leads them to believe that “Trans-X aren’t X”. This reasoning is suspect: most people don't wake up and decide to be "Anti-X" as a "primary" motivation; they're "Anti-X" because it adheres to all kinds of other positions they have, and humans are pattern-matching beings. In other…

It doesn’t follow that beliefs held negative about an opposing group are necessarily prejudiced, though.

Atheists aren’t anti-theists, for example - atheists who value empirical rationalism as a true and positive philosophy generate beliefs felt as negative (or even threatening) by devout theists. Nevertheless, it’s not fair to characterise atheists as anti-theists, or primarily motivated by prejudice against theists.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#87

Post by archagon »

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…

> left wing political ideas like global warming

There's your problem. That's not a "left wing political idea," that's a fact that right wingers just don't like.

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#88

Post by happytoexplain »

adamrezich wrote: post #39
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.

is the statement inaccurate?

The number of cases to examine is small enough to make it difficult to extract a trend, and the nature of the question is very subjective, but my best attempt at an observation is that the described behavior is one of the many personality/cognitive faults that people on both sides of politics exhibit in roughly equal measures. I think an observation of a strong bias in one direction here might be due to other factors (e.g. biases that affect one's exposure to these things).

Re: Wikipedia Is a Source of Political Propaganda

#89

Post by LawTalkingGuy »

dale_glass wrote: post #85
0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. My contention is that Wikipedia is not for "speech" at all, of any kind. This is exactly my point - "speech" in this context means the exchange of ideas, not taken literally as making sounds with your mouth. So perhaps my point would make more sense if you s/speech/free exchange of ideas/ Without a free exchange of ideas, how do you form a consensus of what is or is not fact?…

> Without a free exchange of ideas, how do you form a consensus of what is or is not fact? By having free exchange of ideas allowed outside of Wikipedia, and forbidden on Wikipedia itself. I'm saying the free exchange of ideas doesn't belong on Wikipedia pages specifically.

But the talk-page discussion of what is supportable and what belongs on those pages should not be censored by political opinion.
Post reply on HN