Still can’t get my damn my mind around the “fact” that this shit is disputed
Quick update: the discussion page is even worse, libs try to completely remove the Neo Nazi part of it and label this as “russian propaganda”, it already worked in the German version of the article and you can’t even change it back, to protect the page from “vandalism”
Wow that must be a recent revision. I don’t remember that being there before.
Wikipedia is better than most people give it credit for. To end the opinionated hits on major articles, they opt for going the route of what the most reputable media outlets say.
I know I know, most reputable media outlets is an oxymoron, but it moves the burden of proof off any editor. Then you have the beautiful, thousand page forum threads where people discuss the reputability of an outlet - if an outlet posts BS and anyone points it out, they get knocked way down. You can see all that happening here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
(and I mean way down- if you ever see a “reputable” outlet on that list posting nonsense, you could singlehandedly hurt their reputation by calling it out in this section)
So to summarize - Wikipedia is surprisingly good at this. Don’t be too harsh on them, they have a system that works and gives the opportunity to really punish patently false information.
In principle, yes. In practice, not so much. Just read the article “Holodomor genocide question”, and you see an example of falsehood. The article is supposedly “neutral”, but they very clearly tend towards the idea that it is a genocide.
For instance, when they mention the “genocide” camp, they do not contest their arguments. However, when they mention, for instance, Davies and Wheatcroft, which are against the genocide thesis, it has a paragraph from another author arguing why they are wrong. The genocide camp also mentions Payaslian, which is an author whose work was focused on producing encyclopedias, and they have never studied the Soviet famine.
Usually political articles are biased towards imperialist and anti-communist propaganda
They’re hit and miss. Very much so, and in a way that pushes an overarching liberal bias in many parts of the site. It’s a tough job and the site deserves some credit, but there are many places it fails at atrociously and blatantly. One example is them accepting unreputable and heavily biased sources and denying more relevant ones as ‘untrusted’.
Consider the whole ‘mass killings under capitalism’ debacle, and how someone is abusing the ‘not to be confused with’ feature in the mass killings communism pages to push bias, instead of using the See Also feature like practically every other article on the entire site. If someone found fix that (proxy user by necessity), it would be great.