328 posts and 139 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
post examples of Wikipedia glowing
* glowie rhetoric/rightoid cope on the talk pages
* sus revision histories
* bizarre rightoid editors
* right wing articles with no leftist counterpart
>>1145548>So what's the best way to find out if something on wiki is true or not
By being an editor. I know how much the information on any given page is manipulated because I'm frequently writing pages myself.
And? Vandals exist?
Parts of this thread are completely retarded, complaining about shit the admins have no control over.
>>1168361>* outright remove the source if the error is egregious enough. then later you can remove the claim entirely due to being unsourced
It depends on the article for me but you can just delete it right away if you find it not asserted by the source that claimed to be. supporting the passage.
oh yeah true, that is the more chad option
is that even in the wikipedo rules? lol
It isn't equag the two, it is noting it because the passage is about russian saboteurisim and capitalism.
Another leftypol reading comprehension banger, burger schools must be worse than I thought.
Stumbled onto this article about the destruction of American electrified light rail by an organized cabal from the car industry recently. It's an excellent case study on Wikipedia propaganda for the record books. About seven years ago it was a decent article that catalogued historical fact, but then what appears to be a professional whitewasher came on the scene and relentlessly cleansed the article of neutrality until everyone else got tired and gave up. One of their major sources attempting to undermine the credibility of other historians some guy who wrote two articles for an unheard of newspaper under a pseudonym. At one point a professional historian who was having their credibility smeared in the comments section joined the discussion but it was to no avail. The talk page archive is a fun read:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy/Archive_5
It absolutely is equating the two, through a subtle implication.
Compare the following two sentences
1: He also states this claim became popular in the 1920s and 1930s when anti-semitism was on the rise.
2: He also states that this claim became popular in the 1920s and 1930s when anti-semitism and anti-capitalism
were on the rise.
Why would the conspiracy theory that Alexander Hamilton was Jewish become popular when anti-capitalism was on the rise? Anti-semitism, sure. But anti-capitalism? Why are they trying to draw a causal link between anti-capitalism and conspiracy theories about Jews? Why would they lump "anti-capitalism" and "anti-semitism" into the same sentence about said conspiracy theory? Because they're obviously trying to subtly imply "the commies made up a bunch of shit about Jews, and so did the nazis, because they're the same thing." It's a covert appeal to the idea that anti-capitalism is anti-semitism. Ironically this is a form of anti-semitism because it pretends all Jews are capitalists, and therefore all anti-capitalists are anti-semites. You see this all the time.
My reading comprehension is fine. Propaganda sometimes tells you what to think through subtle implication rather than concrete and obvious statements. This allows the propagandist to plausibly deny the covert appeal.
Thanks for sharing. It's all so tiresome.
imagine being paid by GM to sit on WP for weeks on end doing this
>>1203803>Thanks for sharing. It's all so tiresome.
Nah, it's energizing knowing something about the extent of all this. It gives you a more realistic world view to know what is against us.
National Review is listed as no consensus at RSPS you stupid uyghur
I've had a few times in my life delving into Wikipedia and it's insane bureaucracy.
A lot of getting things done is just being confident enough to quote rules at people. The number one rule is, don't ask for permission, do it and if someone fucks with you, then make sure you project yourself as the person in charge.
One of the funniest paragraphs in any Wikipedia article is the one in the article of the Iron Law of Oligarchy in organizations which talks about how this law is also measurably manifested within Wikipedia itself.
Why not edit them to point out they aren't neutral point of view?
>>1210391>Why not edit them to point out they aren't neutral point of view?
Because it's easier to act indignant and cry about it on leftypol like a little bitch.
This may sound flippant but I'm being serious, when you understand this you will understand this whole thread a lot better.
he should stick to sports
These articles are monitored very closley and edited back aggressively. You can check the talk page and revisions.
>>1211604>one comrade in a sea of liberals
godspeed lenin wikipedian
In the past 7-8 months Russian wikipedia has gotten severely shit because ukrainians and their sympathizers are rewriting pages to present unflattering angles
An example is the BM-30 Smerch page that has an excerpt about cassette bombs used in Kharkov, using about 8 different sources, all Western second-hand MSM repeating the same exact rhetoric.
A similar page exists for the BM-27 Uragan only instead its about "Russian shelling a town into rubble" again citing western sources. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%87_(%D0%A0%D0%A1%D0%97%D0%9E)#%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5
revert it and point out [[WP:POV]]
>>980988>m-muh muh m-m-muh Donbass genocide
Most of those "8000 civilians" were actually soldiers in the militia, whereas actual civilian casualties stay at around 300 in total, with a vast majority of those casualties occurring in 2014
You mean the militia of disenfranchised Russian-speakers which was raised after neo-Nazis were used as shock troops to carry out a coup sponsored by the U.S. and then sent east to put down people rejecting said coup?
glow harder dude
he never responded. (he got btfo and abandoned his assignment)
you wretched little bootlicking cunt. you've clearly never even tried to combat propaganda on this god awful platform where teams of glowing dorks will edit back your revisions or even archive your talk page objections. You can point out obvious biases and conflicts of interest all day and still be told "too bad, we decide what a reliable source is, and we decide all the sources we use are reliable."
>>1206580> a literal CIA front.
Yep. I recall having the same thing happen to me with the tank man article. They were citing a literal "top 30 things China doesn't want you to know!" clickbait listicle from fucking BUSINESS INSIDER as a source for historical claims about Tank Man. I pointed out this had no basis on the talk page, so they changed the source to NYT. Then I looked into their NYT source and found its claim was sourcing radio free asia. so they were using the "paper of record" to launder a state-funded CIA source. I pointed out that NYT's source was state-funded and therefore biased, but "NYT is reliable" they cried. So a "reliable" secondary source can have an "unreliable" primary source and they'll suddenly ignore the rules.
WP actually considers RFA and RFE "reliable" though
what the fuck? The only excuse I can make for them doing this is that the particular revision was vandalization that doxxed someone
I guess "state funded media" is only unreliable when they say so
There's a reason on why is "original research" banned
Yeah, they werent civilians so technically you're wrong :)
>>980618>reactionary news media>Grayzone
How is it reactionary exactly?
They stopped being civilians because they were disenfranchised.
Look at this shit, makes the protesters look like evil murderers and the government as just trying to deal with coronavirus uwu. The entire stuff around the crisis needs reediting.
Documents show Facebook and Twitter closely collaborating w/ Dept of Homeland Security, FBI to police “disinfo.” Plans to expand censorship on topics like withdrawal from Afghanistan, origins of COVID, info that undermines trust in financial institutions.- TheIntercepthttps://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/
Not enough people are talking about this. It’s absurd.
Unique IPs: 31