Propaganda

First of all, yes Wikipedia is an absolutely atrocious source for information. I don't care what study stated it's not much worse than Britannica - inaccuracies aren't the only thing to look for., i I have no clue how they're even defining inaccuracies. Wikipedia indeed is a major offender of spreading propaganda and misinformation, and this is due to the way the site operates, which is fundamentally flawed in regards to how they "validate" information there. It echoes what third party sources say, and the editors are not allowed to apply nuance or critical thinking. So if the biased, propagandized mainstream media makes an untruthful claim, it is valid as a Wikipedia source abs wouldn't necessarily count as an "inaccuracy," per se. At least the English Wikipedia is. The German and Hebrew sites are significantly more trustworthy. Wikipedia is fine for finding sources and references to non-political topics, but nothing should be taken as face value on the articles themselves. Not to mention the Wikipedian community is the most toxic place on the internet with morally questionable administration and an notorious, and often times enforced, left-winged bias.

With that said, propaganda is not always nonfactual. In fact, the best and most effective propaganda builds upon real world truths. The goal of propaganda is indeed to persuade public opinion on a certain matter, and this is ultimately done through taking information out of context and applying or even implying a subjective conclusion to it to appeal mostly to human pathos. In this regard, propaganda relies on fallacious emotion rather than contextualization of the subject matter. The point of propaganda of to have people pick the side they propagandist(s) want(s) them to as quickly as possible and with as little information as possible by appealing to their emotional side through logical fallacy. While it's easier to provide straight up lies, it's more effective to be stretch the truth in order to manipulate the target in being swayed. In the end, this era of headline reliance, doomscrolling, and hashtag culture has led to a generation of f**king idiots who cannot critically think, and thus even comprehend the complexities of most global affairs. This is propaganda at work - complacency with ones ignorance. It's fueling the fires of war and actually dragging on conflict through the eyes of the worldstage.

And nobody who falls victim to this even understands why. We need to teach our children to learn how to critically analyze information instead of feeding them "facts" to be taken as "truths." This is exactly how our youth has become so easily manipulated by propaganda. TikTok, Twitter, Instagram and f**king hastags provide an easy "take my side or you're wrong" approach sharing information, and the receivers literally do not even know that they can question what they're being told. I'm deeply concerned where we are heading. And I'm greatly disappointed in how we've allowed ourselves to get to this point.

Edited by bardberic - October 25 2023 at 08:42

David_D wrote: omphaloskepsis wrote: David_D wrote: What I mean can be read in this article by Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda  . Wikipedia is a major source of propaganda.  If you use Wikipedia as a source on a college paper, you'll receive an F.   Colleges and universities have their own propaganda.

Edited by omphaloskepsis - October 25 2023 at 09:00

Atavachron wrote: It is the fault of those who who are unable take information with a critical eye as much as it is the fault of bad information.   It blames the sources instead of the reader.   Don't like Wikipedia?  Start your own goddamned website. Complainers.   They criticize, start conflict, and then run away and hide in their little basements to let the adults figure it out... and the Complainers run the world right now.

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - October 25 2023 at 23:59

I prophesy disaster wrote: If you're finding propaganda in Wikipedia, it is likely because you are looking up topics that are prone to propaganda. That is not Wikipedia's fault, and perhaps shows that it is you who is biased.

I prophesy disaster wrote: The bias to which I refer is the bias towards topics that are prone to propaganda. There are millions of topics on Wikipedia of which the vast majority would not be prone to propaganda. To repudiate the entirety of Wikipedia on the basis of a very small proportion of it is a strongly biased viewpoint.