WikiPedia:Neutral Point of View
(midwest.social)
Comics- https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia
- https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/11/meet-wikipedias-ayn-rand-loving-founder-and-wikimedia-foundations-regime-change-operative-ceo/
It's a bit crazy to see the kinds of things that are on wikipedia lately about political and social subjects. Especially when you compare the english pages to other languages, and you realize that a lot of far-right leaning wordings and hints are scattered all around the english pages but not in the other versions.
Read Nikola Tesla page in Serbian and Croatian. It's not political per se, but it's really funny.
Best they got https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes
You sure can. Your changes will immediately be reverted, you'll be banned, and, in my case, you'll be doxed, but you can do it.
in my case, you'll be doxed, but you can do it.
Wtf Wikipedia editors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism_and_genocide
I like how that page sources one of the most prominent Israeli genocide deniers as an authority
All definitions of genocide involve ethnicity, race, or religion as a motivational factor.[5] Genocide scholar Israel Charny has proposed a definition of genocide in the course of colonization.[7]
Gaza Fight is Humanly and Legally Just - Israel Charny
Genocide scholar Israel
better definition than "systematic killing of a large number of people with some correlated traits" or other defintions that could include self defense
According to the "scholar" Israel, the settler colonial genocide enterprise, is not committing genocide. So his definition can be thrown into the trash.
still better than the numerous definitions thst water down the meaning to something as little as racialy inspired mass murder.
A definition of genocide which does not encompass the most obvious genocide in world history is a worthless definition of genocide.
Plenty of other definitions exist of non genocide advocates.
Do you have an approved list of scholars that Wikipedia is allowed to reference on the subject?
Seriously though the linked article seems pretty thoroughly referenced and it's not like he's the only source. He certainly has the academic background to be quoted and his Wikipedia page even calls out his views on Gaza.
Campists always do this. They find one source, reference, leader etc that is problematic, even if they have to stretch reality to do so, even if they are a minor participant, and use it to dismiss everything they disagree with
If you see Zionists the same as Nazis this would be akin to putting a Goebbels quote in the article.
But you do not see Zionists as Nazis clearly.
Supporting Zionist propaganda to own the "campists".
All references to his work should be scrubbed as he clearly holds no expertise on the matter. If anything the opposite.
Him being quoted in articles like this shows how infested Wikipedia is with propaganda. Israelis raid Wikipedia to put their own propagandists in there as authorities.
Careful op, Wikipedia is essentially Divine Scripture to western liberals.
That's silly - it's very much the work of humans with all the challenges that entails. However I find the Wikipedia projects aims of providing a globally accessible, multi language encyclopedia a pretty inspiring example of what global communities can achieve.
You can write it off if you want. There are a number of alternative projects that attempt similar things with their own approaches and political philosophies. Although none so far have achieved anywhere near the coverage that Wikipedia has.
That’s silly - it’s very much the work of humans with all the challenges that entails. However I find the Wikipedia projects aims of providing a globally accessible, multi language encyclopedia a pretty inspiring example of what global communities can achieve.
didn't usaid used to have a similar motto only for it to be revealed less than 2 years ago that it was little more than a propaganda manufacturing enabler when trump gutted it?
People are still using the USAID closure as a point to Trump killing a lot of poor people around the world due to lack of access to medicine and food. The organization seemed to do both, being a psyop campaign while providing some material benefit to the communities they were in since providing aid is really good at winning hearts and minds.
compare the amount of money spent on skullduggery compared to the amount spent on on aid to learn where the organization's priorities lie. and be careful not to get suckered into how much they officially spend on aid since most of skullduggery is officially categorized as aid.
I guess we don't have to worry about effect of the cuts then.
there are other organizations out there that will use everything you give them to help instead of turning most of it into pro-us-empire regime control.
Sure - but the point of usaid was being funded by the US government which has(had?) deeper pockets that your average NGO. Other nation states give more as a portion of GDP but there has been a lot of back sliding. Both China and Russia's foreign aid budgets are tiny both in absolute and relative to GDP terms. Only a few of the Nordics manage to exceed the UN guide of 0.7% of GDP.
That’s silly - it’s very much the work of humans with all the challenges that entails.
Those humans specifically being, pro-western-imperialist white males.. Any other voices or viewpoints are silenced.
The irony of posting a link to prolewiki which very much doesn't attempt a NPOV.
You can't stay neutral on a moving train, and there's no such thing as neutrality in a world based on class struggle and class divisions.
Prolewiki is openly a pro-worker site, and wikipedia claims neutrality but in the practice is pro capitalist-imperialist. One is open and honest about its bias, the other is not.
That usually happens with any of the Wikipedia clones. The Wikimedia Foundation has flaws to how it works, but I've yet to see an organization try to replace Wikipedia while trying to keep any semblance of neutrality or impartiality.
It’s very much the work of humans with all the challenges that entails. However
However liberals will disregard the idea that Wikipedia isn't an unattenuated connection to pure truth out of hand. That's why I call it scripture; the idea that it has pervasive biases and inaccuracies is rejected without consideration; anything it states has considered true without possibility of question, even if the source Wikipedia is using would never be believed if it wasn't getting laundered through Wikipedia.
You seem to be painting with a very broad brush there. I've never considered Wikipedia to be free of these problems, I doubt there is any reference work that is completely objectively true.
But it tries to be better one edit at a time.
I'm generalising. You may not be guilty of this, but your average western liberal is. See, for example, other comments in this thread.
But it tries to be better one edit at a time.
You're attaching a spiritual quality to an inanimate thing. Wikipedia doesn't "try" to be anything.
fine, replace "it" with "the community" if the impersonal subject confuses you.
