96
Unbiased = Confirming my biases
(lemmy.nz)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
You can notice a bias towards the state media from pro-capitalist regimes from the above.
True.
But there does not seem to be an equivalent page for 'Mass killings in capitalist regimes'
Even if it is documented, does it not show that how it is organised currently has an imbalance, likely from Anti-communist propaganda, things like red scare etc?
So, cannoted be unbiased, right? My focus was on that. There is no unbiased source, but only ones which acknowledge biases and maybe try to ensure that the biases do not affect the quality of the source too much.
I'm genuinely unsure if it's because of propaganda or capitalist defaultism instilled in contributors due to its worldwide prevalence. Then again I suppose one could argue that defaultism was instilled by propaganda, but I'd like it more to US defaultism where it mostly stems from a large amount of online interaction in English speaking spaces being between people in the US
You can create that page. Don't forget to cite your sources and link to them or it will be deleted.
It's so fucking stupid that you don't think anyone has tried this. And so fucking arrogant that you don't even bother you check before mouthing off.
it will be deleted regardless because a lot of wikipedia editors are cia agents
No! You can't expect them to behave! They need to use blogs and disrecredited historians for citations!!! FACTS ARE CIA!!!
No! You can't deny the holy scripture! The tankies are at fault when we lose, for not believing hard enough!!! CIA ARE FACTS!!!
"My sources are 'facts' because they say so! Your sources are 'discredited' because mine say so!"
A perfectly circular chain of reasoning