Wikipedia is a Propaganda Tool

#1

Post by Sadkov » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

Wikipedia is a Propaganda Tool
lj.rossia.org

Re: Wikipedia is a Propaganda Tool

#2

Post by wybiral » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:45 PM UTC

It sounds like the user violated policy and got banned. I don't see how that makes Wikipedia a "propaganda tool" any more than any platform for hosting any content or communication which has rules that can result in bans.

PS: by that definition Hacker News is a "propaganda tool".

Edit: I can't respond to the post below for some reason (maybe because this article is flagged) but I've never perceived Wikipedia as unbiased. It's a collaborative editing platform meaning it's bound to have lots of biases from all of the editors, but the goal is that more hands on the editing process would hopefully make it less biased. But ultimately it's an experiment and it's done reasonably well, all things considered. They even site the potential bias on their own page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Reception

Re: Wikipedia is a Propaganda Tool

#3

Post by grawprog » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:53 PM UTC

wybiral wrote: post #2

It sounds like the user violated policy and got banned. I don't see how that makes Wikipedia a "propaganda tool" any more than any platform for hosting any content or communication which has rules that can result in bans. PS: by that definition Hacker News is a "propaganda tool". Edit: I can't respond to the post below for some reason (maybe because this article is flagged) but I've never perceived Wikipedia as unbia…

The actual article is ridiculous, but I think there's a difference between something like wikipedia and hacker news. Wikipedia purports itself as being an objective, unbiased, referenced source of information, hacker news on the other hand is very clear with its biases and rules.

I don't partake in wiki editing myself, other than I think one or two articles on bats back in the day, but i have noticed articles on certain topics can lean heavily one way or another, lack proper citations and don't allow edits, that seems kind of propagandaish to me. At that point, it's not an objective encyclopedia entry, it's a subjective opinion from one of the editors with the ability to lock out others.