No post body was provided.
Untitled topic
1–10 of 10 posts
Re: undefined
#2Reality has a well-known liberal bias, after all.
Re: undefined
#3Once for curiosity I tried to read about BLM movement. I wasn't sure if I was reading a historic document of the movement or a BLM demonstration cheerleader.
Re: undefined
#4Reality has a well-known liberal bias, after all.
Citation needed.
Re: undefined
#5Interesting article. I agree that we should be able to expect that Wikipedia is a neutral source.
> Shuichi Tezuka and Linda A. Ashtear are pseudonyms of two American academics.
Do academics in the USA therefore have to expect repression if they publish such articles? Or are there other good reasons why clear names are not used?
Re: undefined
#6Reality has a well-known liberal bias, after all.
Doesn't imply that positions popularly held by self-proclaimed liberals are closer to any objective truth. Reality is what we make of it through our biased consciousness, colored by our value system and sense of morality.
Re: undefined
#7I think a better wikipedia can be built along the github model. Allow each entry to be forked and reforked, but with wikipedia serving as an index rather than a content repository. Use something like github stars for sorting purposes.
This would replace neutrality with plurality, the merely aspirational with the achievable.
Re: undefined
#8Interesting article. I agree that we should be able to expect that Wikipedia is a neutral source. > Shuichi Tezuka and Linda A. Ashtear are pseudonyms of two American academics. Do academics in the USA therefore have to expect repression if they publish such articles? Or are there other good reasons why clear names are not used?
I think it’s because of cancel culture that people are quite fearful to disclose or invite scrutiny of their political choices.
Re: undefined
#9Surprisingly sensible article!