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.
Unbiased = Confirming my biases
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.
71 Comments
halvar@lemy.lol · 36 pts · 1d
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.
OldManBOMBIN@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 1d
Yeah dude just regular mass killings that happen every day
halvar@lemy.lol · 6 pts · 1d
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.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 1d
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.
halvar@lemy.lol · 9 pts · 17h
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.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 2h
I suppose I can see that logic, but capitalism too is a historical anomaly, and will too become a part of history while socialism and eventually communism becomes dominant. Framing it this way is a viewpoint that sees capitalism more as static and unchanging than anything else.
OldManBOMBIN@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 20h
I'm on your side
halvar@lemy.lol · 3 pts · 17h
Yeah, I just wanted to clarify.
OldManBOMBIN@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 13h
Roger that; just making sure o7
Cypher@aussie.zone · 30 pts · 2d
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.
emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works · 26 pts · 1d
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.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 20 pts · 1d
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
the_fuckler@nord.pub · -1 pts · 14h
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
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 12h
Yeah there's always some post hoc justification for it
the_fuckler@nord.pub · -1 pts · 11h
Life's hard when I have to have the bare minimum of rigor before vandalizing public works
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 11h
Lol. Calm down. Creating a Wikipedia page is not "vandalizing public works"
the_fuckler@nord.pub · -5 pts · 10h
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
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 9h
I don't even know what convention you think you're part of
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 9h
You occupy the very specific cross section of Dunning-Kreuger represented by European tech liberals
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 19 pts · 1d
"You know you can do this thing yourself right?"
"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."
Cypher@aussie.zone · -1 pts · 1d
Yeah articles that show capitalist and imperialists in a bad light don’t exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising
The sources referenced there should be a great start for writing the suggested article. Have at it.
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 22 pts · 1d
eldavi@lemmy.ml · 20 pts · 1d
which ones explicitly state that they were caused by capitalism like the point OP was making?
Cypher@aussie.zone · -6 pts · 1d
The suggestion was that OP could simply make an article and reference works that make a strong case for that claim.
It doesn’t appear to be difficult especially in relation to colonialism.
Now if Wikipedia rejected a well researched, fairly written and referenced article, this would be a different discussion.
eldavi@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 1d
the claim is that wikipedia is biased against communism and dedicates a 1/4 of its existence to clearly displaying it:
none of yours do
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 1d
No it wouldn't, it would be exactly the same because you would ignore that Wikipedia deleted it. And we know this because that is exactly what happened
1Malayali@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 2d
True. Would be good to try that and see how it is handled
Asking for the help of others who may see this: Could you help in listing major mass killings by capitalist states?
Will mention ones that I can remember now:
USAmerican regime - Kent State Uni massacre, MOVE bombing, BLM protestors murdered for protesting against the racist regime
British colonial regime in India - Jalianwallah Bagh massacre, Wagon massacre, Massacre of tribes in hilly states
If famines are included, then the Bengal famine, Madras famine, Travancore famine etc.
Mass killings in areas like Ireland n all by the British capitalist regime too
South Korean regime - Jeju island, Bodo league massacres and similar mass killings
Mass killings by Nazi Germany
freshfusion@discuss.tchncs.de · 20 pts · 2d
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?).
1Malayali@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 2d
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.
Squirrelanna@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 9h
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
IpsumLauren@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2d
You can create that page. Don't forget to cite your sources and link to them or it will be deleted.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 1d
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.
pinto@sh.itjust.works · -13 pts · 2d
No! You can't expect them to behave! They need to use blogs and disrecredited historians for citations!!! FACTS ARE CIA!!!
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 1d
"My sources are 'facts' because they say so! Your sources are 'discredited' because mine say so!"
A perfectly circular chain of reasoning
m532@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 1d
No! You can't deny the holy scripture! The tankies are at fault when we lose, for not believing hard enough!!! CIA ARE FACTS!!!
IpsumLauren@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_mass_killings
Dreamer@lemmy.ml · 21 pts · 2d
That is just killings against communists. That is not equal to killings under capitalist states.
Injustices such as the Ludlow would not fall under the former as the victims were not communists. They were workers seeking better wages and conditions under a capitalist system.
IpsumLauren@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 1d
There is no "anti-capitalist mass killings" page either.
calmblue75@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 1d
You might want to give some sources for that heading.
sushiatnight@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 2d
Some good reading about Wikipedia.
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org · 1 pts · 3h
that's an interesting way to sum it up, yeah. do you happen to have any collections of articles that discuss mass killings under capitalist states?
MrShankles@reddthat.com · 0 pts · 1d
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
1Malayali@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 1d
Idk, why should this issue be seen as good?
And what is your culture? Is Wikipedia good for it?
MrShankles@reddthat.com · -2 pts · 1d
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
1Malayali@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 1d
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.
MrShankles@reddthat.com · -7 pts · 1d
Sounds like we both flirt with some bias, doesn't it?
BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 13h
What point did you think you were making here?
BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 13h
"Being informed is positive" is not what is being argued against, and you know it. This is disingenuous and poor rhetorics.
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.
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 18h
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.
MrShankles@reddthat.com · 1 pts · 15h
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?
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 15h
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/AverroesThey 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?
MrShankles@reddthat.com · 4 pts · 14h
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
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 19h
Verifiability is as important as truth.
From WP:BIASED (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources).
(Bolding mine)
OP attached to their comic repost RSP columns.
1Malayali@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 12h
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?
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -3 pts · 7h
Yes, because the "easily-notable bias" is just a result of discussions done at different times to different evidence, and claiming bias is an overgeneralization.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 4h
I genuinely don't know what you people even think bias is at this point
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 2h
Bias just means that you have a worldview, which everyone has whether they acknowledge it or not simply by living and existing in the real world.
Agent641@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1d
Indonesia: Am I a joke to you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 1d
Where's the word Capitalism in that title?
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 10h
What exactly is your issue with Wikipedia?
It's clear from the content of that article that they are willing to include information on capitalism's role in atrocities, and cite anticapitalist sources. The "anticommuniat mass killings" article even shows they are willing to do pro-communist listicles. It's clear to me that the wikipedia article creation and editing process itself does not prevent creating well-sourced pro-communist articles. Are you complaining that the users on wikipedia choose to organize the information in a way that's more aligned with capitalist viewpoints? If so, yes, of course-- most people in the english-speaking world are capitalists, and will view issues in that light. They simply outnumber you and so it is more likely they will make an article. But there is nothing stopping you from making articles of your own or improving existing articles to include your perspective. If you want Wikipedia to be more accurate and think it's missing info or organized incorrectly, you are free to edit it yourself. It seems really weird to blame Wikipedia for this when the issue is (1) inherent to being a platform filled with user-generated content and (2) something you are in a good position to solve if you chose to participate.
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 6h
Are you unable to read?
makeshift0546@lemmy.today · -5 pts · 2d
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 17 pts · 2d
Is there a reason for deliberately breaking the rules by being ableist? Could you not have phrased your discontent with the meme in a way that doesn't break the rules?
makeshift0546@lemmy.today · -5 pts · 2d
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 19 pts · 2d
Do you actually have a point, then? Why defend ableism? There are billions of ways to insult people that don't rely on bigotry.
makeshift0546@lemmy.today · -6 pts · 2d
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 2d
All of the conversation is surrounding your bigotry.
KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 2d
Ableism from a lib instance. Classic.
makeshift0546@lemmy.today · -7 pts · 2d
It’s amazing that you think what instance someone comes from means jack shit. Like a fundamental lack of thought process . When this account gets banned I’ll make sure to hop on my .ml accounts to troll you from beyond the grave 😂
KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 2d
It's always the same instances that post the most vile lib and fascist comments.
Also Imagine thinking someone is beyond critique because they are from the same instance
Post hog
makeshift0546@lemmy.today · -6 pts · 2d
👌👍