I know Wikipedia is liberal and pro NATO-crap, but this is so insane it’s funny.
Edit: Web Archive seems a bit slow, so a faster link here: https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SnarlingContentFowl-mobile.mp4
In the world of academia, Wikipedia is wholly rejected as an academic source. However, it can be acknowledged that Wikipedia can be useful to gain some level of “general knowledge” in some topic or another. But anything that has some kind of political discussion is going to be a mess. Just look at the edit history of any page related to communism, the USSR, Stalin, Ukraine, “Holodomor”, etc.
I see one major issue with using Wikipedia as a launchpad for research, as many professors suggest (basically, disregard the article, just use it to find sources). Wikipedia likes to ban sources that are contrary to the Western narrative, particularly State-owned media from socialist countries (and extra topical, Russian State media). Like, they don’t outright ban it, but any edit that cites them has a large chance of being rejected, but basically any Western mainstream media, even blatantly false articles that have been debunked, seems to be just fine according to the mods. I don’t care if you’re a socialist or like socialist media or not (I mean, I am and do respectively), but either way you should definitely have a problem with tbis. Banning such media is deception by omission and that’s no bueno for serious research.
That’s all true, and very problematic. Though what I meant by my statement was not specifically about political matters. Like if you’re studying chemistry or something there probably isn’t this issue.
Wikipedia has long been a tool.
I swear I saw a post on Lemmy about Wikipedia blocking access from Mainland Chinese IPs claiming protection from abuse. I tried searching for it but couldn’t find it. Anyone else know what I’m talking about? Or was it just a fever dream of my own creation?
No idea, but Wikipedia is a tool as far as geopolitics regarding ANY country/system other than “Western neoliberal democracy” under “international rules based order”.
Well aware:
https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/
Secondly:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with attribution.
China Global Television Network was deprecated in the 2020 RfC for publishing false or fabricated information. Many editors consider CGTN a propaganda outlet, and some editors express concern over CGTN’s airing of forced confessions.
The Grayzone was deprecated in the 2020 RfC. There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information. Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal’s blog, and question the website’s editorial oversight.
Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use.
Way more than those examples on the page
Wait, I did not know of that page that Wikipedia itself has. That fivefilters blog page is also nice. I know of examples like smearing of the Swiss Policy Research page.
