96
WikiPedia:Neutral Point of View
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026
96 points (75.0% liked)
Comics
8426 readers
134 users here now
This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.
Rules:
1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules
2- Be civil.
3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.
4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine 🇵🇸 . Zionists will be banned on sight.
5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.
Guidelines:
- If possible, give us your sources.
- If possible, credit creators of each comics in the title or body of your post. If you are the creator, please credit yourself. A simple “- Me” would suffice.
- In general terms, write in body of your post as much information as possible (dates, creators, editors, links).
- If you found the image on the web, it is encouraged to put the direct link to the image in the ‘Link’ field when creating a post, instead of uploading the image to Lemmy. Direct links usually end in .jpg, .png, etc.
- One post by topic.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
There is no such thing as a neutral point of view, if you have a brain capable of holding a point of view then you have a body that biases you towards your own survival, comfort and social connections.
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.
Yes, something should be pro-labor class
Neutral points of view do not exist, so it's better to honestly take a partisan stance than to do so while lying about it.
Neither does Wikipedia, at least prolewiki doesn't lie about it
The irony of not understanding that objectivity is not possible when describing events, while being subjective in your critique yourself.
Prolewiki is precisely as biased as Wikipedia, it just admits it, which is preferable since it is easier to be aware of your bias if you actually take it into account.
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.
Honesty = good.
True radlibs will never understand this.
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.
You're attaching a spiritual quality to an inanimate thing. Wikipedia doesn't "try" to be anything.
In fact, it often gets worse one edit at a time
fine, replace "it" with "the community" if the impersonal subject confuses you.
Go fuck yourself
Well the community sure as hell doesn't try to be better; if anything they work hard to entrench these problems as hard as possible.
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.
Narrowing the scope this tightly -- without factoring in the global scale historical impact -- is probably the only way you can argue in favor of USAID.