Propaganda

I prophesy disaster wrote: ....I find Wikipedia to be quite a good source of information, ....

Lewian wrote: My take on this is that it is pointless to hope for objectivity where political interests are involved. Trusting Wikipedia blindly is not a good idea, but there is no other source in a privileged position either. If Wikipedia does "propaganda", who doesn't?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: The problem with Wikipedia is that it is not a neutral platform. In theory anyone can edit all the information, but in reality the editing is heavily biased towards popular political narratives. Here's a video with more details. (preparing for lots of comments on who made the video, and hardly any comments on the points made)

Yes, rightly so. First of all, why would you rely on this kind of opinion videos to illustrate your own opinions? In my view they rather discredit your own - valid and otherwise interesting - statements.

Second, I agree that Wikipedia is not free from bias or factual errors. I think it is inherent to its model: it is not peer reviewed by experts as a "normal" encyclopedia (which does not imply that this would be bias free...), but by an unidentified legion of contributors. In its beginnings this was the main critique: it could not be reliable because of that. I think it has proven a certain reliability over time but there are indeed more bias sensitive topics, vulnerable to propagandist tendencies. In my own domain - film and media - I've regularly noticed factual errors on Wiki, generally rather innocent, but I do advise my students, when using Wikipedia, to double check their information. This does not mean that it is by definition wrong or propaganda, but it means it should be used with some caution. Just like all media/internet sources.

Third, yes, St**sel is clearly biased (right leaning) in this video, but that is as such OK as long as one differentiates facts from opinion. Which he doesn't. I'm not going into his valuation of the New York Post "revealed" Hunter Biden laptop affair, which has been overtaken and undermined by actuality (the video was posted more than a year ago). It is more his stance on other media that makes him "dubious" when he states: "Wikipedia labels many dubious left-leaning sites "reliable" but rejects conservative sites that are just as good or better."
Well, here he clearly confuses bias with reliability. Mother Jones e.g. is a clearly leftist media outlet, but their investigative journalism is well checked and verified and thus reliable. Most of those "leftish" outlets score better in reliability than the right-wing outlets he has chosen to mention according to Ad Fontes' Media Bias Chart.

It is also important to know and check who is talking and from where (stand points, ideology, financial interests...). Cindy - quite rightly - pointed to the stakeholders of news outlets. Though she illustrated this with a minority stakeholder in several of them, thus not necessarily a decisive "power", it is good to be aware of it. It is of particular importance to know if those stakeholders also have editorial influence. This is the case with Fox News for example, but others have protected themselves from this kind influence (e.g. Le Monde - and Ithink it is the case with many other European news outlets - has assured through its statutes an editorial independence from their stakeholders - for as long as it takes, of course).




Edited by suitkees - October 27 2023 at 11:22

David_D wrote: I prophesy disaster wrote: ....I find Wikipedia to be quite a good source of information, ....

Atavachron wrote: Wikipedia is biased.   Sometime it's biased toward the Left.

omphaloskepsis wrote: ..Wikipedia consistently supports the narratives of the rich and powerful.

omphaloskepsis wrote: Wikipedia advertises itself as UNBIASED.  That is a huge lie.

suitkees wrote: omphaloskepsis wrote: Wikipedia advertises itself as UNBIASED.  That is a huge lie.   Wikipedia is unbiased when it comes to reporting what team won the Super Bowl in 1970.   However, when it comes to issues that affect people's lives...Wikipedia consistently supports the narratives of the rich and powerful.  Sometimes, the rich and powerful narrative is not leftist, but conservative right. The rich and powerful support Israel's war against Palestine.  Many folks on the left support Palestine.   I am not attempting to convince you, Atavachron. I don't care if you use Wikipedia.    This is a thread on propaganda. I am merely pointing out that Wikipedia's narrative mirrors the super-rich and powerful narratives.  You are free to agree with the rich and powerful, and root against your own self-interest, Atavachron.   That's the goal of the rich and powerful narrative.  Well, this is actually a big laugh in a thread about propaganda! Of course, I've probably missed it but I cannot remember any advertisement of Wikipedia claiming to be unbiased. I suppose you can present us some examples? Then, the rest of your rant is just unverifiable... errm... propaganda against wikipedia with unsubstantiated accusations of purported stance of the encyclopedia for or against this specific war you're referring to. You're completely derailing.

Edited by omphaloskepsis - October 27 2023 at 13:55

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Atavachron wrote: I watched the video you posted, Mike.   Wikipedia is biased.   Sometime it's biased toward the Left.   Sometimes not.   So the f*ck what.   Don't use it.   Go out and find a vintage set of encyclopedias.   Grow up. "Grow up"? How patronising is that? How about you f**k off?  I'll keep using Wikipedia as I please. I'll keep criticising Wikipedia as I please. If you want to be the totalitarian fascist creep that tells others what to do or how to think, by all means, knock yourself out. The stage is all yours.