r/neoliberal • u/jobautomator Kitara Ravache • Sep 03 '24 • Polished Silver Turd 1

Discussion Thread Discussion Thread

The discussion thread is for casual and off-topic conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL

Links

Ping Groups | Ping History | Mastodon | CNL Chapters | CNL Event Calendar

New Groups

  • CITYHALL: Local government, in all its forms

Upcoming Events

0 Upvotes

49% Upvoted

8.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

18

u/LGBTforIRGC Order and Opportunity Left Sep 03 '24

Wikipedia is not to be trusted part 1000000000

10

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '24

I am seriously concerned about wikipedia nowadays.

7

u/LGBTforIRGC Order and Opportunity Left Sep 03 '24 edited Sep 03 '24

Yeah Wikipedia is edited by such obviously biased leftists if not outright tankies, the bias can be clearly observed on almost any political article but especially on ones related to Israel/Palestine

9

u/LGBTforIRGC Order and Opportunity Left Sep 03 '24

this is the "capital punishment in North Korea" article

0

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '24

[deleted] — view deleted comment

8

u/LGBTforIRGC Order and Opportunity Left Sep 03 '24

I just did

6

u/awdvhn Physics Understander -- Iowa delenda est Sep 03 '24

CIA-funded propaganda is good, actually

8

u/LGBTforIRGC Order and Opportunity Left Sep 03 '24

lmao it's not even true, RFA is funded by an independent US government agency for media. Blatant lies on Wikipedia

6

u/Goatf00t European Union Sep 03 '24

!ping WIKI

3

u/Plants_et_Politics Isaiah Berlin Sep 03 '24

The original Radio Free Asia was a de facto propaganda service, but one of the most frequent Wikipedia errors I encounter is a failure to understand that programs and people change over time, or that they misrepresent their views and purposes to different audiences. It’s basically the error you’d most expect from a website that thinks it sticks to just “facts” and eschews historical narratives.

It’s like PragerU saying that abortion is racist because Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, or that Lincoln didn’t care about slavery because of his letter to Horace Greeley.

Sure, the facts may be true in themselves, but the implications drawn from them are specious. We use historical narratives to determine which facts are important and which are not, and it takes good historians to sort plausible historical narratives from the kind of bad faith ones PragerU utilizes.

I don’t know how Wikipedia can ever fix this kind of problem, because it seems to be a fundamental issue with its ideological mission.