Wikipedia may delete entry on ‘mass killings’ under Communism due to claims of bias
Craig Simpson
The Daily Telegraph
27th November 2021
Now perhaps people understand why the Wikishits banning the Daily Mail was significant.A Wikipedia entry detailing “mass killings under Communist regimes” faces being purged from the platform over fears about bias.
....with some users responsible for maintaining the site taking issue with blaming mass murder on Communist ideology.
The dedicated entry .... has been accused of putting forward a biased “anti-Communist” point of view...
A heading on Wikipedia’s article ... currently states “The neutrality of this article is disputed".
...
...one proponent of deleting the page has stated on Wikipedia’s discussion page that “the view that the ideology of communism is somehow inherently violent is … anti-communist [point of view] pushing”.
Another supporter of deletion claims the entry on the deaths under Communism, estimated by some historians to be in the region of 100 million people, should not resort to “simplistic presuppositions that events are driven by any specific ideology”.
It has also been argued by one of the host of users who update and maintain Wikipedia that the page on mass killings under Communist regimes “is enabling a narrative and supports some fringe ideas about history”.
The proposed deletion of the page .... has been criticised.....[Cambridge historian Prof Robert Tombs] .... said: “This is morally indefensible, at least as bad as Holocaust denial, because 'linking ideology and killing' is the very core of why these things are important.
“I have read the Wikipedia page, and it seems to me careful and balanced. Therefore attempts to remove it can only be ideologically motivated – to whitewash Communism.
“Already, this appalling history is downplayed: in Britain, schoolchildren are much more likely to study the Third Reich than the Soviet Union.
...
For it WASN'T AN ACCIDENT that one of the pieces of shit that pushed so hard for that outcome, making absurd claims like somehow the MailOnline's understandable inclusion of celebrity stories, would somehow affect the reliability of serious Mail On Sunday political comment, the well established, highly experienced and proudly not anonymous Wikipedia Administrator Guy Chapman (JzG), soon followed it up with comments laying the groundwork for the idea that even the Telegraph is too biased to be considered reliable for Wikipedia’s purposes. There was no push back.
A few more stories like this, and you can expect a retaliation from the community.
People can claim Wikipedia isn't in the grip of leftists all they want, they can suck my plums. We are well past the point any of this is explained by any other narrative than Wikipedia is wholly on board with the idea that right wing opinion is just so much fake news bullshit, not fit to even be noted in a neutral encyclopedia as one side of a debate. There is no debate as far as these freaks see it - Wikipedia is neutral. All those who claim otherwise, are lying.
The irony that you can LITERALLY PROVE the wikishit who proposed the Daily Mail be banned, knowingly lied during the debate, and even after it was noticed, NOBODY CARED, the closers apparently not even seeing that significant enough to note, is apparently lost in them.
It's easy for the wikishits to look past such things, given anyone who points it out on Wikipedia, gets banned. Try it. You'll get gaslighted, made to believe by experienced Administrators like the unfortunately named Newslinger that you have imagined these things, and this disreputable tactic of disposing of inconveniences, will be approved of at the highest levels.
Do not disrupt Wikipedia by presenting the verifiable truth for their consideration.
A cult is what a cult does.
And the so called independent Wikipedia investigators Wikipediocracy are of course entirely on board with this bubble boy bullshit. Their views of the Daily Mail debate and indeed the Mail itself are well known, and unsurprisingly, are entirely in lock step with the Wikishits.
They are naturally busy discussing this recent clusterfuck, in a characteristically not very helpful manner, and it is telling that the one solitary comment from the ownership, is as follows.....
It's exactly what a Wikipedia editor would say if you tried to get the above reliably sourced criticism of Wikipedia, added to Wikipedia.Zoloft wrote:The Telegraph is very right-wing biased.
There's not much here for serious critics to note otherwise, the nature of this clusterfuck being entirely normal for Wikipedia, all documented before.
I'll note a few specific things solely because the world really does need to understand just how badly Wikipediocracy sucks (and to prove that me being the smartest person in any room labelled "Wikipedia criticism" is no accident).
1. A serious encyclopedia wouldn't tolerate a matter such as this being disputed four times now, to no apparent conclusion. A definitive answer would have been arrived at, and a moratorium placed on future deletion/creation, pending any new evidence emerging.
2. A well run crowd sourced encyclopedia with Administrators capable of enforcing its own rules, would have prevented this fourth AfD even occurring, since it was clearly an attempt by a user to derail an already active attempt at dispute resolution, and wasn't even filed with a policy compliant rationale.
3. There's nothing inherently complex about this issue that would mean a single Administrator isn't capable of closing the debate with a sensible summary that speaks to policy and strength of argument. As happened with the Daily Mail ban, they're hoping the fact that three Administrators working as a panel to file an obviously unsatisfactory closure that ignores significant but inconvenient aspects due to their underlying need to paint a biased outcome as neutral, will hide the inherent flaws of Wikipedia.
Corrupt actors with the power to achieve their biased aims are a serious problem for Wikipedia, but an all pervading bias affecting the whole community is an even bigger one. A bias not remotely reflective even of the real world's ideological divide, as is often claimed as their excuse.
The UK voted for Brexit by a narrow majority, the Mail's opinion writers having clearly been reflective of the national mood for decades. But you'll struggle to find a single Wikipedia Administrator who doesn't think Brexit is crazy talk and all those who vote for it are lunatics. Wikipedia is more the place where a Wikipedia Administrator like Ritchie333 is allowed to have openly biased views, and write anti-Mail Wikipedia articles.
That said, it seems clear the article at dispute will be kept, but as the closers will probably note, sensing their obligation to maintain Wikipedia’s bias, that will only be so that the biased Wikipedia editors who are trying to delete it, can achieve their second best outcome - edit it such that it becomes a magnifier of the case for denial.
And nobody with any sense is going to spend the hundreds of hours (and several of your decadent Earth dollars) to prove the resultant article is biased, through an exhaustive analysis of the prevalence and content of sources and a consideration of their reliability.
Why would you bother? You're dealing with people who, ON A LARGE SCALE, think the Daily Mail is the UK equivalent of the National Enquirer. They're happy to believe and act on that clearly made up shite even before they could reliably source it AT ALL.
And you will be unsurprised to learn the only reliable source prepared to say it now, is the same source that wrote a very pro-Wikioedia account of the Daily Mail debate, using only Wikipedia editors who wanted the Daily Mail banned as his sources, and more broadly, has written a serious of largely flattering articles on Wikipedia.
You can't reason with such people, you can't debate with them.
Bias is what bias does. Facts are immaterial to such people.
Wikipedia cannot be fixed. It has to be destroyed.
HTD.