NATION

PASSWORD

Is Wikipedia still a credible source?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Is Wikipedia still a credible source?

Yes
69
63%
No
40
37%
 
Total votes : 109

User avatar
Liberal Malaysia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 616
Founded: Oct 08, 2021
Civil Rights Lovefest

Is Wikipedia still a credible source?

Postby Liberal Malaysia » Thu Sep 19, 2024 6:15 am

How Wikipedia Launders Regime Propaganda

As the wave of relief washed through the Democratic Party in July following Biden’s decision to step aside, both Democrats and Republicans instantly understood that one of Harris’ biggest weaknesses was also among the most critical issues of the race — illegal immigration at the southern border. Republicans were quick to point out Harris had been appointed border czar by Biden and the failure was hers to own. Democrats denied Harris had ever been appointed “czar,” calling the claim a GOP talking point.

Voters who googled the question would likely have encountered a Wikipedia article listing presidential czars — as valuable a resource as any. Visitors who accessed the “List of executive branch czars” article on July 24 would have been informed that Kamala Harris had, indeed, served as border czar. But those who came to the page a day later, specifically after 4:02 pm Eastern Time, would have found no mention of Harris at all.

Within minutes of Harris’ removal, the article’s Talk page erupted into an edit war with numerous editors pointing out that Harris’ name had only been added to the article the day before it had been removed from it, suggesting it had been added for political purposes. The resolution to this quandary hinged on a seemingly simple, even binary question: was Harris border czar or not?

In cases of factual disagreement like this one, Wikipedia defaults to its core operating principles — including Wikipedia:No original research, which prohibits the inclusion of claims or assertions “for which no reliable, published source exists,” and Wikipedia:Verfiability, which ensures that “information comes from a reliable source.”

In this case, there was a dilemma. The media, in the wake of Harris’ overnight nomination, denied Harris had ever been border czar. “[T]he Trump campaign and Republicans have tagged Harris repeatedly with the ‘border czar’ title, which she never actually had,” wrote Stef W. Kight in Axios on July 24. Yet, a month after Biden had made a speech tasking Harris with overseeing aspects of the border crisis, Axios reported, “Harris, appointed by Biden as border czar, said she would be looking at the ‘root causes’ that drive migration.” (In March 2021, Kight herself reported that Biden had put Harris “in charge of addressing the migrant surge at the U.S.-Mexico border.”) The BBC made a similar claim the day of Biden’s speech (“Announcing Ms Harris’s appointment as his immigration czar, Mr Biden told reporters...,” the article read). Other reports from that time, including one from CNN, noted that Republicans had attempted to pin the term “czar” onto Harris’ role for political reasons, prompting the White House to push back years before Harris’ candidacy.

The debate on the article’s Talk page became heated. “Wikipedia’s editors once again showing utter contempt of history itself and an embrace of Orwellianism,” one editor wrote.

“This is just a case of contemporary politics being played with [Wikipedia] content, as ‘the border’ is the #1, 2, and 3 issue of the Trumpists. Get the banhammer ready,” said another editor.

Impassioned as it was, the Harris “czar” flap was just one skirmish amid the ceaseless battles over Wikipedia articles with even remotely political resonance.

Wikipedia articles present their subject matter with a casually authoritative, almost stolid tone. But beneath the surface lies endless argumentation played out in rounds of procedural maneuvering that would shame the most deft legislative hand. User bans, discretionary sanctions, requests for comment, arbitration cases, topic bans, page bans, deprecated sources — all encoded in a shorthand jargon — lie behind the “consensus” displayed in an article’s seemingly ripple-free surface. In a way, this arcana of behind-the-scenes conceptual machinery is Wikipedia’s most impressive feature. It’s what keeps it from grinding to a halt on infighting and intransigence.

The problem is — like with the Harris border czar reference, which is still omitted from the czar article (and will almost certainly stay that way) — the consensus it achieves often lines up with the prerogatives of the Democratic Party and the media establishment that supports it.

One of the reasons for this cuts to the very heart of how Wikipedia works. The encyclopedia is governed by a raft of policies like Wikipedia:Notability (subjects of articles should meet a threshold of notability), Wikipedia:Recentism (overdue emphasis must not be placed on recent events), and Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View (self-explanatory). None, however, play even close to the outsized role that Wikipedia:Verifiability plays, with its insistence that claims “must be attributable to a reliable published source.” The obvious question this standard raises is which sources are considered reliable. While some Wikipedia policies invite ambiguity, on this the site is clear. The Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Perennial Sources page filters media sources into categories of “Generally reliable,” coded in a green-filled cell on the page’s table, yellow for those on which there is “No consensus,” and red for “Generally unreliable.”

The breakdown of sites filtered into each respective category is telling. The cadre of news outlets that collectively make up the mainstream media — ABC, CBS and NBC News, Associated Press, Vanity Fair, Vogue, The Atlantic, Axios, BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, Wired, CNN, AFP — are classified green for reliable. Strongly left-leaning outlets like Vox, Mother Jones, The Guardian, HuffPost and The Intercept are as well. But so are outright leftist or socialist outlets, including Jacobin, The Nation, and The Independent, as is civil rights advocacy NGO Southern Poverty Law Center.

Conservative outlets like Fox News (on politics and science), The Federalist, The Post Millennial, and Washington Free Beacon are red for generally unreliable. A lower ring of “deprecated sources,” whose use is outright prohibited, includes the Daily Mail, The Daily Caller, The Sun, NewsMax, and The Epoch Times. The Weekly Standard and Wall Street Journal (the latter of whose news pages are known for tilting more leftward than its right-of-center opinion page) are the only American conservative outlets with a green rating. Right-leaning tabloid New York Post is red; left-leaning tabloid New York Daily News is green.

While conservative American media is almost uniformly red, the same cannot be said of foreign outlets with dubious agendas. State-owned networks China Daily and Xinhua — whose purpose is to spread Chinese government propaganda to the English speaking world — get a yellow for “no consensus.” Al Jazeera, owned by Qatar, an authoritarian state, is blessed with a green reliability rating.

Regardless of its accuracy, the reality is that Reliable Sources/Perennial Sources is the fuel that keeps the engine of political Wikipedia running. With Reliable Sources/Perennial Sources at the core of how articles with political import get edited, Wikipedia is, in many ways, a wrapper for mainstream media reporting, churning news articles into neutrality-emblazoned fact. The veracity of reporting by mainstream media is not to be questioned; doing so violates an informal, but nonetheless efficacious policy broadly known as Gaslighting.

Given all this, you might think Reliable Sources/Perennial Sources is a foundational aspect of the site, ratified early on by some vote or community procedure. But you’d be wrong. While the policy of using reliable sources originated in 2005, the Reliable Sources/Perennial Sources list was created as recently as 2018. Its originator was neither a panel nor a commission of Wikipedia editors. The list was never formally adopted by the community. Rather, it was the creation of a single influential editor who, until his departure from the site in 2020, went by the handle MrX.

MrX created the list amid the heady days of Trump-related political controversies when Wikipedia’s Talk pages were marked by as much tumult as the political discourse in the broader culture. His first iteration of the list included only a single source green-coded as generally reliable: the New York Times. The Daily Mail was, already from the list’s inception, classed as red. At the same time, MrX — who, by the time he left the site was in the top 99.998 percentile of users by number of edits — was engaging in fraught debates on the site, sometimes devolving into what’s known as edit wars, on topics of extreme political sensitivity. He was highly influential in the editing of the article on Donald Trump, which (perhaps unsurprisingly) remains the first result on a Google search for Trump’s name. Between 2015 and 2020, MrX made nearly 600 edits to the “Donald Trump” article alone, not including edits to Trump-related articles.

The same year he created the Reliable Sources/Perennial page, MrX brought a wide-ranging ban against another editor, Atsme, who was also busy editing political articles (including Trump’s) albeit with a different political lens. Atsme had made clear her belief (she was identified by various users, including MrX, as a woman) that articles related to Trump were being subjected to intense political bias. In one line of argumentation, she challenged a decision by other editors to attribute racist intent to Trump in various instances. On the Talk page for an article called “Racial views of Donald Trump,” she questioned the characterization of Lindsey Graham’s reaction to Trump’s “shithole countries” comment. A group of editors described Graham’s statement as condemning Trump but, citing a CNN interview, Atsme argued Graham had in fact spoken out in defense of Trump.

Atsme similarly protested when editors sought to portray Trump as racist by referring to a reconstructed and uncorroborated conversation in a book by a former COO at one of Trump’s companies, which attributes to Trump defamatory and racist remarks against black people. Atsme argued this was an accusation of racism, since it hinged on being embraced by the media as an authentic account of the exchange. In the case of the Trump book, a priori acceptance of the media position on the statement purportedly made by Trump shifted the debate from one about whether the comments were accurate to whether they were racist. (Given their extreme nature, they obviously were.) She wrote on the article’s Talk page that “political opposition [to Trump] makes everything about racism when it isn’t, and I have cited [reliable sources] saying that very thing on this [Talk page]. We are supposed to exercise editorial judgment, not blindly repeat what journalists and pundits say, especially when there are known biases.”

Perhaps this was the point. After MrX self-instituted the Reliable Sources/Perennial Sources list, Wikipedia began anchoring assertions of factual knowledge to claims made by the mainstream media. But as the media began to widen the definition of racism to include the ever-expanding set of definitions issued by academics, BLM and the anti-racism movement — e.g. microaggressions, cultural appropriation, professionalism, structural racism, use of terms such as “master bedroom,” “blacklist” and “peanut gallery,” whiteness, and, of course, the denial of racism — Wikipedia naturally followed suit. In the case of the former Trump company COO’s book, the media took the author at face value, running articles, listicles and op-eds, including one by the book’s author, about the exchange. In the end, Wikipedia editors were satisfied with a reference to an interview Trump did with Playboy magazine to source the claim, which remains in the article.

Atsme similarly argued that, in Wikipedia’s Donald Trump article, the statement, “As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks,” had gone beyond its remit given that these were, once again, accusations of falsehoods. Atsme proposed the statement should read, “Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump’s statements during his first 100 days as president, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks.” On the Talk page, the intent of the editors on the other side of the debate was clear: Trump was by nature a liar — many contested he was a “pathological” liar — and the original statement merely reflected that objective fact (translated into the style and tone of the encyclopedia, known as WikiVoice). “[C]alling him [a pathological liar] is hardly controversial anymore, except among die hard Trump supporters with their heads in the sand, but let’s not go there [winking emoji],” one editor quipped.

MrX’s position was defiant. Debating a re-named section title, he argued that the revised title was “not a fair representation of the overall coverage of Trump’s habit of lying. If anything, this section should be updated based on more recent tallies of his lies, and the widespread view that the lies are not simply exaggerations or ‘distorted statements’ (which is just a fancy way of saying ‘lies’).” He later underlined this sentiment writing, “I never wrote that he is a liar in the article, and I wouldn’t because it's not in keeping with encyclopedic tone. But let’s not mince words — he is most definitely a liar; a fact which is well documented in multiple reliable sources…”

On the question about whether claims about Trump’s racism should be presented as allegations, MrX fired off: “This article is not about accusations; it’s about Trump’s 45 year documented history of racially-provocative remarks and racially-motivated actions.” He bolstered his position by citing a litany of Wikipedia policies, including the policy not to question reliable sources. Other editors opposed to Atsme’s edits were just as unambiguous. One influential editor she debated responded, “Atsme, Trump has been despised ever since he slithered through the Queens-Midtown Tunnel in the late 1970’s.”

Just a few weeks after these exchanges took place, MrX brought an arbitration case against Atsme, essentially requesting she be banned from editing articles about American politics. Wikipedia guidelines for cases like this maintain that an editor who brings a case should cite two or three “diffs” — edits made or comments posted on a Talk page — to demonstrate evidence of a “smoking gun” proving a particular offense, not general opposition to another editor. MrX provided close to 100 diffs presented in a lengthy brief divided into sections. In the first section, he accused Atsme of violating WP:Gaslighting, detailing the offenses as “Repeatedly discrediting reliable sources; claiming bias and propaganda in reliable sources.”

What MrX neglected to mention, however, was that he was also the author of the gaslighting policy, which he’d created just weeks before creating Reliable Sources/Perennial Sources. Much of MrX’s case hinged not on questions of content or the merits of Atsme’s edits but on accusations of improper behavior. But on that ground, Atsme responded by showing cases where MrX had posted profanity-laced diffs, including one where he wrote to her, “I’m so fucking thoroughly sick of the constant drama and battleground bullshit on Wikipedia that I could puck [sic]. How about you and your whole busybody crew fuck right off!!”

MrX knew he was on shaky ground. By rights, a case like the one he’d presented would be brought for an “Arbitration Enforcement” (AE). But with AE cases limited to 20 diffs, while MrX had presented over 80, he had to appeal to a higher authority. In this case, an “uninvolved administrator” was brought in who issued a topic ban against Atsme nine minutes after she posted her response to MrX’s allegations, effectively silencing her from commenting further on the case.

Atsme’s American politics topic ban was later overturned on appeal to a higher body, Arbcom. But this would not be the only “T-ban” Atsme would face. She was similarly banned for posting on anti-fascism topics, where a cohort of editors had resisted efforts to show coordination behind Antifa, and had made edits to make it seem as if journalist Andy Ngo, described for a time in his Wiki entry as a “far-right” “social media activist,” had been merely “involved” in an altercation, rather than victim of an attack that left with him a brain injury.

The list of such political-reality-bending edits goes on. Eight days after Kamala Harris announced Tim Walz as her running mate, the Criticism section on Walz’s Wikipedia article was removed in its entirety. (The removal was made by an editor with administrator status who is in the top 100 list of editors by number of edits.) The article on Hunter Biden’s laptop, cast in its very title as a “controversy,” notes in the second paragraph that while the New York Post published a front-page story about the laptop in 2020, “other news outlets declined to publish the story due to concerns about provenance and suspicions of Russian disinformation.” Far from making the kind of statement of hard fact that editors had readily made regarding claims about Trump’s racism, the article fails to definitively state that the laptop is not, in fact, Russian disinformation. Instead, it offers a hedged disclaimer: “By May 2023, no evidence had publicly surfaced to support suspicions that the laptop was part of a Russian disinformation scheme.” The door was thus left open to the possibility that, four-plus years on, evidence of Russian disinformation could still arise.

The article on a possible lab origin of the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, “COVID-19 lab leak theory,” mentions the variations of the term “conspiracy theory” nearly 40 times. By comparison, the article on chem trails, a canonical example of an actual conspiracy theory, uses variations of the term around 50 times. “Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories,” the lab leak article states — once again casting aside qualifying statements to assert a bald fact. A book titled Covid Conspiracy Theories in Global Perspective written by two literature professors is cited as the source. Just one paragraph later the article asserts, “Scientists and media outlets widely dismissed [a lab origin] as a conspiracy theory.” While the former claim, that scientists as a whole “dismissed” a lab origin scenario, is demonstrably false, the latter claim about the media was true — and, as I previously reported, is precisely what distorted the scientific debate on the virus’ origin.

Instances like this are compelling, but they’re also backed up by data. Earlier this year, David Rozado, a machine learning researcher who specializes in analyzing bias, published a major study of the site. Rozado found “an average tendency in Wikipedia articles to use the names of prominent left-leaning U.S. politicians with more positive sentiment than their right-leaning counterparts.” He found the trend extends to US Supreme Court Justices and American journalists — in both groups, Wikipedia tends to employ positive sentiment in articles touching on figures on the left and more negative sentiment for figures on the right.

Most importantly, the same is true for US media outlets. Of the 10 outlets with the highest positive sentiment levels, seven are left-leaning, with NPR — whose CEO was formerly the CEO and executive director of Wikimedia Foundation (see my deep dive here) — achieving the highest sentiment. The reverse is true on the other end of the spectrum, where eight out of the 10 outlets with the most negative sentiment are conservative.

That the green-coded outlets on the Reliable Sources/Perennial Sources page align with outlets associated with the most positive sentiment should be no surprise. And perhaps this is the crux of the matter: reducing our understanding of knowledge to assertions made by a small subset of supposedly “reliable sources” — sources which, we learn every day, are not disembodied institutions but companies with interests and agendas staffed by people with biases and flaws — not only leaks bias into the encyclopedia but glazes those sources with an epoxy of false objectivity. That the list of reliable sources was created by a single individual who, it is evident, brought his own set of heavily reinforced biases to the site only makes matters worse.

There is no doubt that Wikipedia is a testament to the limitless power of collaboration and an odds-defying wonder of human achievement. The question is whether in our hyper-partisan world Wikipedia can fulfill its grand mission or if, like so many institutions whose inner dynamics overpower their founding missions, the encyclopedia is fated to achieve exactly the opposite of what its founders intended.

— Ashley Rindsberg


Has Wikipedia's long history of neutrality and impartiality been compromised? Is Wikipedia still a credible source?

What has happened to Wikipedia in recent years is cause for alarm. Critics of Donald Trump and the GOP have completely taken over the site while anyone who is even remotely perceived as being sympathetic to Trump in any way risks getting banned from editing articles relating to certain topics, particularly American politics.

"Mr. X" is a nasty, misogynistic piece of work. He was the one who unilaterally drew up a list of "reliable" sources that conveniently happens to favor left-leaning media sources and disfavor right-leaning media sources. Foreign propaganda networks such as Al Jazeera and Xinhua are listed as "no consensus". Foreign state-owned mouthpieces in authoritarian states are treated as "more reliable and trustworthy" than Fox News. Mr. X also drew up the "gaslighting" guidelines that prohibit "questioning reliable sources" just a few weeks before he drew up his "reliable sources" list. How convenient.

Also worth noting is that the former CEO of Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine Maher, is now the head of NPR, a state-affiliated media network that has itself been the subject of a scandal after a whistleblower blew the whistle on its operations as a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and was forced out as a consequence. Katherine Maher has posted far-left tweets in the past expressing support for terrorism and racial discrimination.

The Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, is itself a conduit for woke causes such as "abolishing the police" and an "intersectional scientific method", and a recipient of funding from the Wikimedia Endowment, whose "Movement Strategy" seeks to pivot away from "the principle of decentralized knowledge" and toward the realm of "top-down social justice activism and advocacy". The conflict of interest is simply impossible to ignore. Source.

Wikipedia has devolved from a neutral, impartial, reliable source of info into yet another propaganda arm of the Democratic Party of the United States. Because Wikipedia is almost entirely dependent on legacy media (AKA "reliable") sources, and because most of those sources have themselves succumbed to left-wing ideological bias since 2016, Wikipedia can no longer be considered a reliable source on many topics, especially those touching on politics. Like countless other U.S.-based organizations and institutions, it has been totally overrun by Democrat Party loyalists with an ideological ax to grind.

I'm not going to completely write off all of Wikipedia's articles as biased. An article about the color purple is far less likely to exhibit any sort of bias than an article about Donald Trump. Even biased media outlets such as the BBC may post the odd unbiased gem every now and then. But then again, so may state-owned mouthpieces CGTN and RT if they're talking about flowers or something. Just be sure to steer clear of politics-related articles. Nevertheless, I would definitely avoid Wikipedia articles about Donald Trump or Kamala Harris as those articles are guaranteed to be dripping with left-wing bias.
FUCK PALESTINE. STAND WITH ISRAEL.
NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE. WE ARE ALL INFIDELS. EXISTENCE IS RESISTANCE.
How non-Muslim infidels are ACTUALLY treated in Islam
There is no such thing as "Islamophobia"
There is no one I respect and admire more than Douglas Murray.
#TRUMPVANCE2024
Factbooks | Dispatches | Pro/anti | Based forumposts, dispatches & sigs by others
Right-wing atheist. Neither liberal nor conservative.

User avatar
The Data Hoard of the Overseer
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: May 27, 2024
Corporate Police State

Postby The Data Hoard of the Overseer » Thu Sep 19, 2024 6:16 am

It depends

Why do you think nationstates is a credible source on credible sources?
Last edited by The Data Hoard of the Overseer on Thu Sep 19, 2024 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
An Extradimensional Intelligence requisitioning your everything
NS Stats and Policies recycled into murder monsters

It's a future tech nation in a medieval tech region because sense is relative

User avatar
Six Tribes of Natlan
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 150
Founded: Sep 17, 2024
New York Times Democracy

Postby Six Tribes of Natlan » Thu Sep 19, 2024 6:20 am

I think some of it has been compromised by making political stances on articles related to current events.

These stances should be placed in subsection indicating things like "Views" or "Political Stances" when discussing candidates or media.

Some articles (about animals, video games, movies) are still quite reliable.

We are in desperate need of a reliable and accessible encyclopedia for knowledge.
Last edited by Six Tribes of Natlan on Thu Sep 19, 2024 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Floofybit
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11379
Founded: Sep 11, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Floofybit » Thu Sep 19, 2024 6:23 am

No. I looked up "best ideology" and the first result in alphabetical order was Anarchism.
Last edited by Floofybit on Thu Sep 19, 2024 6:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Compass: Northwest
Reformative Authoritarian Pacifist
Pro: Socialism, Authoritarianism, The Right To Life, Environment, Public Services, Government, Equity and Equality, Surveillance, Police, Religion, Pacifism, Fruit
Anti: Capitalism, Liberalism, Abortion, Anarchy, Inequality, Crime, Drugs, Guns, Violence, Fruit-Haters
Religious ace male floof who really, really, really loves fruit.
Broadcasting From Foxlington
Safety & Equality > Freedom
If I CTE hold a funeral because I'm dead :)
"Our choices are what make us good or evil— what we do, how we help or hurt the world. You make the world a better place by being in it." —Indigo the Seawing
Telegram me your favourite colour, I'm doing a survey

User avatar
Bir Matras
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 125
Founded: Jun 24, 2024
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bir Matras » Thu Sep 19, 2024 6:25 am

Floofybit wrote:No. I looked up "best ideology" and the first result in alphabetical order was Anarchism.

Considering I got send to the List of political ideologies, i am assuming you got to. And Anarchism is very high up in the Alphabet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

User avatar
Dumb Ideologies
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46419
Founded: Sep 30, 2007
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Dumb Ideologies » Thu Sep 19, 2024 6:27 am

It's more credible than not having a source. It's less credible than a well-sourced book or article written by a respected expert. The gold standard is divine revelation received in a dream by a terminally-online schizophrenic.
Are these "human rights" in the room with us right now?
★彡 Professional pessimist. Reactionary socialist and gamer liberationist. Coffee addict. Fun at parties 彡★
Freedom is when people agree with you, and the more people you can force to act like they agree the freer society is
You are the trolley problem's conductor. You could stop the train in time but you do not. Nobody knows you're part of the equation. You satisfy your bloodlust and get away with it every time

User avatar
Futurist State of Flassau
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1239
Founded: Jun 28, 2024
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Futurist State of Flassau » Thu Sep 19, 2024 6:28 am

Wikipedia is probably trying its best at Neutrality. However, some people try to ruin it with their own views and sometimes it slips through, most of the time however it can get locked and wikipedia editors will bring it back.
Last edited by Futurist State of Flassau on Thu Sep 19, 2024 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
He/Him
Living in the Chaos that is South East Asia
Still Somewhat Neutral on Homosexuality
Spiritual but not Religious
The Jewish People is there now, but the Palestinian Arab people is also there, i do not support either side, only a peaceful resolution.
Insult the Government, not the Citizen
For Democracy! Let Authoritarianism die and Freedom thrive!

User avatar
Nanatsu no Tsuki
Post-Apocalypse Survivor
 
Posts: 206870
Founded: Feb 10, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nanatsu no Tsuki » Thu Sep 19, 2024 6:29 am

It more than likely depends on the article, the sources quoted for that article and the who edited it. No doubt there are plenty of Wiki entries that have been embellished or compromised. One must be discerning when using Wikipedia for sustaining claims.
Imtheochaidh soir is siar. A dtáinig ariamh an ghealach is an ghrian…
Video (working on re-uploading) made by Valentine Z, and used with permission. Spainball Flag made by Pinkienia.

Also: THERNSY!!
֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGs
RIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria

User avatar
Untecna
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5992
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Untecna » Thu Sep 19, 2024 8:58 am

Dumb Ideologies wrote:It's more credible than not having a source. It's less credible than a well-sourced book or article written by a respected expert. The gold standard is divine revelation received in a dream by a terminally-online schizophrenic.

I hear he made a pretty fire operating system, too.
Dragon with internet access. I am coming for your data. More for the hoard.
NS stats and policies are not canon. Except my scientific advancement score.
49rs | Vols
Issues Author (#1520) | Failed GA Resolution Author

User avatar
Stellar Colonies
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7358
Founded: Mar 27, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Stellar Colonies » Thu Sep 19, 2024 9:29 am

It’s helpful as a quick summary and as a collection of sources, although it can range from excellent to abysmal based on the article.

It’s certainly better than some alternative “wikis” I’ve seen getting unironically cited here.
Pondering Californian nationalism
I try to be objective, but I do have some biases.

Male North Californian & TEP'er with ASD.
Stellar Colonies is a loose galactic confederacy.

The Confederacy & the WA.

Add 1200 years.
Notable Quotes

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 167173
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:19 am

The content of the OP suggests that a better title for this thread would be "Is Wikipedia a massive conspiracy against the right?"
He/Him

beating the devil
we never run from the devil
we never summon the devil
we never hide from the devil
we never


Saoirse don Phalaistín

User avatar
Bir Matras
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 125
Founded: Jun 24, 2024
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bir Matras » Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:23 am

Can someone provide an example of a biased article?

User avatar
Primum Dixie
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Sep 19, 2024
Right-wing Utopia

Postby Primum Dixie » Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:23 am

Wikipedia was never a credible source in the first place, but its recent descent into far-left extremism has removed any doubt from my mind as to whether it truly presents a “neutral point of view”.

User avatar
Kerwa
Minister
 
Posts: 3211
Founded: Jul 24, 2021
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Kerwa » Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:24 am

It’s okay if you want to quickly look up a date or something. And it will give you a collection of sources. Some its more technical stuff is obviously written by people with a poor understanding of the material - at least it the case of my narrow area of expertise - so it’s likely not the best place if you want to understand something specialized I imagine.

I would cite it for anything however, and in that sense, no, it is not a credible source.

User avatar
Raiding puPpeT
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 144
Founded: Apr 27, 2024
Democratic Socialists

Postby Raiding puPpeT » Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:25 am

yeah. most people wont like tamper with most articles because it'll get reversed. also like it hasn't like at all become more left leaning
pretty dumb person
i should become president
trans rights are human rights

User avatar
Lilim
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: May 13, 2024
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Lilim » Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:26 am

Still? As if it ever was?

User avatar
Khardsland
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1684
Founded: Jun 10, 2022
New York Times Democracy

Postby Khardsland » Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:29 am

Wikipedia stopped being a reliable source once they started promoting anti-Soviet hatred, Zionist propaganda, and actual CIA talking points. Hence why Prolewiki is superior.
“When I feed the poor they call me a saint, but when I ask why the poor are hungry they call me a communist” -Hélder Câmara
"We liberated Europe from fascism, but they will never forgive us for it" -Marshal Zhukov

Equality > Freedom
From the river to the shining sea, the natives shall be free!
My LeftValues Score

All NS Policies canon except AI Personhood, Affirmative Action, Metricism, Human Sacrifice and AI Planning
A Class 1.14 nation according to this index
Population: 371,508
No NS Stats are considered canon

User avatar
Nanatsu no Tsuki
Post-Apocalypse Survivor
 
Posts: 206870
Founded: Feb 10, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nanatsu no Tsuki » Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:30 am

Bir Matras wrote:Can someone provide an example of a biased article?


Iirc, questionable articles have disclaimers. Honestly, if it’s questionable, why even have it up in the first place?
Imtheochaidh soir is siar. A dtáinig ariamh an ghealach is an ghrian…
Video (working on re-uploading) made by Valentine Z, and used with permission. Spainball Flag made by Pinkienia.

Also: THERNSY!!
֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGs
RIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria

User avatar
Khardsland
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1684
Founded: Jun 10, 2022
New York Times Democracy

Postby Khardsland » Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:31 am

Bir Matras wrote:Can someone provide an example of a biased article?

The article on the supposed Holodomor Genocide Question. Continues the BS myth of it being a campaign of Russification (which died with the White and Green Armies) while denying the genocides the kulaks attempted.
“When I feed the poor they call me a saint, but when I ask why the poor are hungry they call me a communist” -Hélder Câmara
"We liberated Europe from fascism, but they will never forgive us for it" -Marshal Zhukov

Equality > Freedom
From the river to the shining sea, the natives shall be free!
My LeftValues Score

All NS Policies canon except AI Personhood, Affirmative Action, Metricism, Human Sacrifice and AI Planning
A Class 1.14 nation according to this index
Population: 371,508
No NS Stats are considered canon

User avatar
The Terren Dominion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 725
Founded: Nov 21, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Terren Dominion » Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:32 am

It was never a "credible" source. It is at best a broad overview of the topic with an invaluable SOURCE list which is where its true value lies.
The Terren Dominion
Terren is a mighty colonial empire forged from a collection of tribes and kingdoms set in a fantasy world.
Overview|Military|Navy|Magic|Economy|Maps|Religion|Language

Poly-Sci student, lover of history and the HRE
Anti-Fascist
I agree with some aspects of socialism and communism but am generally pro capitalist.
NS Stats are canon.
If anyone on this website guesses my actual religion, I will immediately know they have been spying on me because you absolutely did not guess that.
I still consider myself conservative, but I am socially pretty liberal and can no longer support the Republicans while they are under Trumps control.
Fascism is bad, Racism is dumb, LGBTQIA+ people deserve full rights, and Climate Change is real. Duh.
Yes, the word "Terren" is spelled correctly.
Absolutely no relation to Starcraft.

User avatar
Corporate Collective Salvation
Senator
 
Posts: 4701
Founded: Mar 22, 2023
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Corporate Collective Salvation » Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:33 am

Lilim wrote:Still? As if it ever was?

Exactly.
Being as editable and scrubbable as the internet itself, it never was.
Still, as far as research shortcuts go, I think it gets it more right than not.
Progress, not perfection.

User avatar
The Selkie
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19119
Founded: Sep 17, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Selkie » Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:33 am

Well, to quote a professor of mine: "Wikipedia is not a credible source. The things Wikipedia quotes, though, are worth a look."
I play PT, MT and a bit FT. I am into character-RPs.
My people are called the Selkie, the nation is usually called the Free Lands in MT-settings. Thanks.

Silverport Dockyards Ltd.: Storefront - Catalogue

User avatar
Gurkland
Envoy
 
Posts: 250
Founded: Jun 30, 2014
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Gurkland » Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:37 am

Ifreann wrote:The content of the OP suggests that a better title for this thread would be "Is Wikipedia a massive conspiracy against the right?"

More specifically, because of OP flag that stand with Israel i think it's crystal clear that he doesn't like that there are so many wikipedia pages exclusively dedicated to the israelis actions against the palestinians, because there are abundant sources about it that are referred on wikipedia on the matter. A few years ago the pages were much more kind to israel.
But to stay on subject, wikipedia cannot be neutral in two spheres: You cannot be neutral when there is a clear truth and false(The wiki page of the flat earth theory really cannot be neutral) and the other is that Wikipedia suffers from institutionalism and credentialism because Wikipedia is simply a mirrors of its reputable sources and its reputable sources are the western state institutions, the largest non governmental institutions, the academias, the mainstream mass media and of course reliable peer reviewed scientific research.
So i am not really blaming Wikipedia but rather we should blame what the mainstream consensus on something is

User avatar
Bourbon Wisconsin
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 101
Founded: Aug 22, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Bourbon Wisconsin » Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:53 am

The question presupposes the idea that Wikipedia was ever a credible source in the first place.

I'm a man who studies the incredibly niche subject of Wisconsin folklore.

Within that field of study is the "fearsome critters", legendary creatures from the tales of lumberjacks.

One of these critters is known as the teakettler, a small, shy critter, which walks backwards and can shoot clouds of vapor out of its nostrils with a sound like that of a teakettle.

A lot of online resources further go on to say that the teakettler resembles a "small, stubby legged dog with the ears of a cat." You can find a lot of art made by people depicting the teakettler as such.

However, the original descriptions of the teakettler make no such claims. The earliest art of this creature makes it look like a living teakettle rather than a dog.

So where does the idea that the teakettler resembles a dog come from?

Wikipedia.

Some person simply inserted the unsourced claim that the teakettler was a "small stubby legged dog with the ears of a cat" into Wikipedia. (Technically the claim was sourced, but the contents of the cited source reads identically to this description I linked earlier, and so the source does not support the description given).

Then online articles written about the fearsome critters repeated this description found on Wikipedia. Then people made art of it following this description.

And the thing is, while the original claim on Wikipedia was originally unsourced, now people can source the claim to those published online articles, which Wikipedia considers a valid source. The fact that these articles got that idea from Wikipedia in the first place is of no concern.

And the doglike description is now so prevalent that it effectively is part of the modern lore of the creature. The majority of images you can find of a "teakettler" online all use the Wikipedia description. So there you have it, some dude making up stuff on Wikipedia has permanently altered and shifted the popular understanding of a legendary creature.

I can only really evaluate Wikipedia's credibility based on my own highly specific, niche expertise in a really narrow topic. But evaluating it based on that knowledge leads me to believe Wikipedia was simply never a credible source in the first place.

It is still interesting to me from the perspective of a folklorist. It is interesting to see how misinformation on Wikipedia becomes widely adopted to the point where stuff made up on the site becomes legitimate folklore in and of itself. The process of how legends memetically evolve is always my favorite aspect of folklore. But the site should never be accepted as a credible source.
Last edited by Bourbon Wisconsin on Thu Sep 19, 2024 11:21 am, edited 5 times in total.
Like Wisconsin, but inexplicably a Distributist French Constitutional Monarchy

My stats are canon but my policies are not.

Eleazer Williams was Telling the Truth!

Joe McCarthy did Nothing Wrong!

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 132648
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Ethel mermania » Thu Sep 19, 2024 11:02 am

Wikipedia has never been a neutral source, every article has the bias of its writers.

The proper use of Wikipedia is as a starting source, to get a general idea, and then go from there
https://www.hvst.com/posts/the-clash-of ... s-wl2TQBpY

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.
--S. Huntington

The most fundamental problem of politics is not the control of wickedness but the limitation of righteousness. 

--H. Kissenger

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Abserdia, Aekaria, Artstokska, Atrito, Benuty, Bienenhalde, Brydenfel, Cholympec, Ci Arovannea, Cyptopir, Czesfjordinger Boykisser, Dahistan, Deblar, Denoidumbutoniurucwivobrs, Euganea, Galloism, Google [Bot], Gran Patria de las Antillas, Haganham, HISPIDA, Iran 2024 Roleplay, Kernen, Kerwa, Leprechaunia, Maichuko, Moneeri, New Aeyariss, New-Minneapolis, Nightralia, Norse Inuit Union, Northern Seleucia, Ostroeuropa, Pale Dawn, Raiding puPpeT, Southland, The Black Forrest, The Terren Dominion, Ttomz, Untecna, Valentine Z, Valrifall, Washington Resistance Army, Yasuragi, Zurkerx

Advertisement

Remove ads