"Where Wikipedia's editors are"

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
Post Reply
User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

"Where Wikipedia's editors are"

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:26 am

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... hy/605023/

Gosh, how similar these are to some of the charts I prepared in 2011-2012....

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: "Where Wikipedia's editors are"

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:58 pm

Posted on Slashdot:
https://news.slashdot.org/story/20/02/2 ... edium=feed

Good comment there, although it fails to point out that the far leftists in the US and Commonwealth countries tend to be less prone to violence than the corresponding far rightists:
>Wikipedia matters. In a time of extreme political polarization, algorithmically enforced filter bubbles, and fact patterns dismissed as fake news, Wikipedia has become one of the few places where we can meet to write a shared reality.

Is "fact patterns" a new euphemism for the narratives you want to push?

>The site's editors are disproportionately cis white men from the global North.

Yeah, their skin color and genitals are the most important qualities, rather than how far they lean left or other biases.

Compare the intros on these articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

>> Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies. Used to describe the historical experiences of fascism and Nazism, it today includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, Third Position, the alt-right, white nationalism and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, anti-communist, or reactionary views. These can lead to oppression, violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics

>> Far-left politics are political views located further on the left of the left-right spectrum than the standard political left. The term has been used to describe ideologies such as: communism, anarchism, neo-Marxism, anarcho-communism, left-communism, Marxism–Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maoism.

Suddenly when we write about far left politics, of course we don't feel the need to point out the awful consequences, no matter how high the body count.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: "Where Wikipedia's editors are"

Post by Abd » Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:00 pm

This is where the world goes when we care less about fact and more about what it "means," which is not fact, it's interpretation.

"Fact patterns" are interpretive, but can be reported as fact, if care is exercised. That is, it is possible to collect fact in such a way as to provide neutral data for interpretation. This is vulnerable to cherry-picking, but the sane remedy for cherry-picking is to collect the rest of the evidence.

Instead, each faction collects its own facts and interpretation and claims that the other factions are biased, which they are, because human beings can be biased, it's actually quite difficult to avoid. And then, to top it all off, there is trolling and lying and mild or severe hatred, that pretends "hateful" is a fact.

And then, in the wikiworld, if sufficient fact is collected to allow interpretation, it will be attacked as "wall of text," failing to distinguish between data (which can indeed be voluminous) and polemic, i.e., data intepreted to create a point being pushed.

And, of course, if polemic is created, it will be rejected by those who don't like it as "without evidence" and "biased."

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: "Where Wikipedia's editors are"

Post by Abd » Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:55 pm

Somewhere in the wilderness, a vilignat farted.
zzzt

Post Reply