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.
This page in a nutshell: Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.
Verifiability is as important as truth.
But reliable sources are biased!
From WP:BIASED (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources).
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
(Bolding mine)
But reliable sources are chosen by biased contributors!
OP attached to their comic repost RSP columns.
I think you may have misunderstood point of that image.
It not on the sources being biased(there are no unbiased sources), but noting the easily notable bias in the Wikipedia source selection, the preference for media funded by pro-capitalist regimes.
Do you see an issue in noting how Wikipedia has this bias, and going against the notion by some that it is unbiased or neutral?
That's probably because most mass killings under capitalist regimes are just generally called "mass killings". They are your regular, run of the mill mass killings that aren't really newsworthy and that we are accustomed to.
Yeah dude just regular mass killings that happen every day
My previous comment was very cynical, but when you think about it communism is the historical anomaly. Sure you can point to the Mass killings wikipedia page, but you can also do that with other topics and they also are separated into "XY under communism" and "XY" articles. XY could be stuff like "Economy", "Urban development", "Housing" or "Worker's rights". It's just a convention wikipedia seems to adhere to.
I'm on your side
Yeah, I just wanted to clarify.
Roger that; just making sure o7
In what way is communism a historical anomaly in a manner that capitalism does not fit into? Both are part of the same historical development process.
It's an anomaly in the sense that it was present in high gear for around 70 years in the 20th century and most people (who are likely to read wikipedia) probably don't live in it right now. That's my one and only reason for calling it that.
You know you can make a page yourself right?
Go ahead and compile a list with sources referenced and write it up according to the style guide.
People have done this repeatedly and been nuked every time. It's extremely fucking telling that all the Wikipedia true believers have clearly never actually looked into the process themselves
That would be because you're supposed to contribute articles to the repository before you're allowed to just go scribbling on the walls. Authorarian and draconian, I know. A system likely devised by the CIA to oppress white people who never go outside
Yeah there's always some post hoc justification for it
Life's hard when I have to have the bare minimum of rigor before vandalizing public works
vandalizing public works
Lol. Calm down. Creating a Wikipedia page is not "vandalizing public works"
You're right. It's the requirement be granted editing privileges. Try to keep up. Or go read the rules before you whine. Or just stop playing dumb
I don't even know what convention you think you're part of
I don't think OP is concerned about the existence of one particular article, but rather the various systemic biases in what Wikipedia chooses to include or exclude.
"You know you can do this thing yourself right?"
Person does thing
"No you are using biased language and have to use exclusively sources which are known to repeat CIA imperialist propaganda like the Hamas rape hoax on demand."
Fascist and colonial states atrocities are widely documented in Wikipedia, countries that we consider capitalist probably too. I recently stumbled across Belgian atrocities in Congo reading Wikipedia by accident. It motivated me to read more about it in the future, maybe "Heart of darkness" (while not exactly historical, it still seems like a good critique. By the way is it a good novel?).
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.
Idk, I've learned a tremendous amount about things outside my culture... because of wikipedia. Don't let perfection be the enemy of good?
Edit: I apologize that my comment derailed from the conversation of Wikipedia having inherent and abundant Western bias... the fact that VOA is considered reputable is enough to turn heads. What I guess I was trying to say is that I wouldn't want people to ignore a good resource for information because of that... but it is also very important to point out and criticize their bias, if true neutrality is a Wikipedia "goal"
I apologize again. I would delete my comments, but I think it's important to own up to my own errors and have a record of what was said. Maybe others will learn from my misinterpretation of the conversation being presented, and my initial emotional responses
Did you? Or did you read a tremendous amount of propaganda and selective truths, thinking you were getting informed?
Virtually all of the information you are reading is written by Western white men who have a very specific agenda. And the sources allowed are Western sources.
Nobody escapes propaganda. Learning and trying to understand your own bias is the best you can do. Unless you have a source for perfect objective truth that you'd like to share?
You can escape propaganda by getting informed by multiple perspectives.
Not by reading a single source which claims to represent multiple perspectives but actually completely reframes reality to sell you a single perspective.
Wikipedia is great for any exact sciences. History and politics related information is extremely selective and has a Western agenda attached.
Look at this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes They put his Latin name as the title and his picture is a painting in an Italian church. Now read who he was. Does the framing match?
I agree, multiple perspectives is absolutely key and using any one source for history or politics will be problematic. Wikipedia is absolutely bias with Western ideology, but it's not exactly a propaganda machine. I always use it like you're taught in school, that Wikipedia is not a source. Depending on how deeply you would like to learn about a subject, it's a great start to finding sources. Unfortunately biased with Western bullshit, absolutely, as is everything coming out the west
I guess I am derailing the conversation if we're just talking about and calling out Wiki's Western bias. I would also hate for people to think it's automatically not informative because of it's bias... cause everything has one. Multiple sources and viewpoints, like you said, is the way to go
Idk, why should this issue be seen as good?
And what is your culture? Is Wikipedia good for it?
It's not? Being informed is always positive, and it's always unfortunate that bias exists. I'd rather learn and try to understand my own bias, as opposed to being ignorant and having bias anyway
Do you have a tool that is just as accessible as wiki, but perfectly objective? Or are you throwing the baby out with the bath-water? Knowledge is good for any culture, and bias is a motherfucker to us all. Your critique isn't unwarranted, but it does flirt with anti-intellectualism
"Being informed is positive" is not what is being argued against, and you know it. This is disingenuous and poor rhetorics.
Do you have a tool that is just as accessible as wiki, but perfectly objective? Or are you throwing the baby out with the bath-water?
More poor rhetorics. If youre not interested in actual discussion, why engage with someone acting in clear, good faith? Its pretty clear that the argument is that the issue with Wikipedia is that it presents itself as unbiased, while in fact being heavily biased. The issue is not the presence of bias itself.
Being informed of the bias is also positive
No one mentioned anything about throwing the bathwater, but only hinted at the bias.
Are you trying to villainise and portray it as anti-intellectualism?
Are you thinking that the source you use is unbiased and trying to derial convos that hint at how it is not unbiased?
Noting the bias is a good thing and trying to shut down the convoys on that is a bigger mf to all of us.
Your concerns isn't unwarranted, but it does flirt with strawmanning and derailing the convo.