Wikipedia's political bias problem

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.

Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Postby sashi » Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:37 am

ericbarbour wrote:

Very, very old story. Lots of American Democratic Party supporters showed up early in WP history. Some of them even purged the others...ask Andy Sylvia about that.


Sofixit, Eric. (lol)

I was installing LAMP recently and so was reading about PEAR and its bugs. Through this I learned that Eileen (WMF/CiviCRM) and Elliott (WMF/CiviCRM) were responsible for fixing (§) a major vulnerability in a (deprecated?) PHP library last week. :shock:

:unicorn powa:
User avatar
sashi
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Postby ericbarbour » Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:34 pm

sashi wrote:I was installing LAMP recently and so was reading about PEAR and its bugs. Through this I learned that Eileen (WMF/CiviCRM) and Elliott (WMF/CiviCRM) were responsible for fixing (§) a major vulnerability in a (deprecated?) PHP library last week. :shock:

Also an old story. If you want people in the software business to laugh at you, tell them you write PHP code. It's so obsolete you can't even find new textbooks about it--there are plenty of books available but they tend to be reprints of titles that are more than 10 years old. All of MediaWiki was written in server-side PHP, because it was the 'fast and dirty" solution 20 years ago. And now we, and Wikipedia, are stuck with it. Also stuck with hundreds of known MediaWiki bugs and issues the WMF software team is well aware of. And refuses to discuss with anyone.
#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Postby CrowsNest » Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:31 am

The Sarah Jeong controversy is highlighting their ingrained bias quite well.

Sangdeboeuf, the editor trying their hardest to present the controversy in the best possible light for Jeong, is of course totally uninterested in examples of when the exact same logic and arguments he is deploying at this article, always seem to magically fail when the person or group is on the right.

Naturally, examples of Wikipedia getting it wrong in one area is not an excuse to get it wrong in another. But such a clear example of an editor refusing to accept that this is even relevant, much less not being willing to get off his ass and to fix those articles about right wing persons or groups that, by his own logic, are out of compliance with Wikipedia's own rules, is clear evidence of deliberate bias at work.

He is not working to ensure neutrality for all, he is there to defend Jeong. His top ten editted talk pages on Wikipedia reveals this activity is not an aberration for him.

There is an obvious price to pay for this sort of partisanship and intellectual dishonesty being so clearly visible in your most prolific talkers, if you cast yourself as a neutral project open to all, and it appears they are already paying it at this article.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Postby CrowsNest » Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:51 am

Case in point.....
I think Abecedare is doing an admirable job of holding down the fort and monitoring discussions while still ensuring that Wikipedia policies are complied with. Someone has to be watching over that article and talkpage, because it's full of people up in arms about things that were in the news cycle less than 24 hours, and a lot of those editors appear to be very POV and do not understand the importance of WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and so on. Even if there is a head-count that "approves" a certain wording, something should not go into the article if it violates WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, or WP:UNDUE. If all else fails, the article should be reported at WP:BLPN if the talkpage hysteria gets overwhelming. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, fine words, if we set aside the subjective nature of the policy decisions implied, and we also ignore the white lie, this issue having been in the news for a lot longer than 24 hours.

I just have one question for this High Priestess of the Wikipedia Cult.......why is there seemingly never anyone holding down the fort in this way at articles on right wing figures and groups? Seriously, find me one comparable situation where the politics were reversed and this call were heeded.

Is there really any other answer to that question, than the obvious fact anyone who even attempted to do so, would be quickly overrun by Wikipedia's leftist and liberal editors, who sure do seem nothing if not really motivated to add news that supports their politics. The chief weapon in that assault on the local Marshall, of course, being the Holy invocation of CONSENSUS (read:headcount).
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Postby CrowsNest » Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:55 am

and another.....
I'm wondering how to square your comment with reality on Wikipedia. RoseAnne's infamous tweet was posted to her page the very day it became news, and no one had a problem. It is even in her Lede. We need to stay consistent and avoid bias at all costs to remain credible as an encyclopedia. petrarchan47คุก 21:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Your opinions as to a) whether this situation is equivalent to Barr's action toward Jarret and b) what the editing community needs to do to remain "credible", are not appropriate here. Please refrain from offering them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedians really do need to realise that when their policies don't have any concrete examples, when someone like Jytdog is telling others repeatedly what is and is not UNDUE, using a rhetorical technique no more advanced than blind assertion, it ironically carries little weight.

In the real world obviously. Talking absolute bollocks carries lots of weight on Wikipedia, when what you are saying helps a person or group on the left, and lots of other editors who have put a million years into this nonsense like Jytdog has, agree with it.

You can see his dilemma though. About the only reason you can argue that Barr's tweet is relevant for inclusion, is because there was only one. That's a distinction I'm guessing all of Jeong's defenders don't want people to realise exists. Quoting one tweet is not UNDUE, quoting one as a representative of a bucket load, would be. That is their logic. It is indefensible, so they take the Wikipedian way out - choose not to defend it, and tell you to shut the fuck up and mind your bizness.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Postby CrowsNest » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:47 pm

This is why Wikipedians are allergic to the other stuff argument (they never seem to realise, or ignore on purpose, that WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't say don't refer to other stuff at all, only policy, it says you can, just make sure it is relevant)......
The 10 year test supports including the content - coverage of this kerfuffle far exceeds (by several orders of magnitude) any prior coverage of Jeong - and it is eminently obvious this will be a significant portion of this bio in 10 years time.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You are confusing your desires with reality. No one will care about or remember the content of her tweets in 6 months, and this ridiculous controversy will have no lasting impact on the world of any kind. --JBL (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Unluckily for this fool, the lasting impact of the last supposedly soon forgotten NYT PR hiring disaster, did have lasting impact, being revisited by reliable sources now, precisely because of the similarity to this latest incident. And it happened, LITERALLY six months ago.

https://www.wired.com/story/sarah-jeong ... save-them/

.....and in comparing the two cases, people understandably have questions.....

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/b ... rah-jeong/

Just another piece of settled reality, Jeong's instant comparison to Norton, that won't be making it into her Wikipedia entry any time soon. Why? Because under Larry's original model, even when presented impeccably neutrally, it would make the reader ask questions the Wikipedians of today, think are just the irrelevant trolling of the crazy right wing harassers of this minority snowflake.

If they have a third one in another few months, well, I think then it becomes a meme, no? And memes are permanent, always notable, never forgotten. Just ask Wikipedia.

You can't have a debate with people this manifestly stupid, never mind their bias. You just have to point and laugh. Particularly because they got themselves into these pointless arguments, positions that they can never hope to win, not without suffering severe reputational harm in doing so. The NYT is certainly being harmed, and it actually had a reputation to begin with. Wikipedia, not so much.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Postby hyatt » Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:43 pm

Let us remember Franzboas
many mainstream and largely uncontroversial writers (including many leftist Jewish academics) discuss the influence that Jewish identity, Jewish values, and Jewish interests had on major political movements and schools of thought. Many of these narratives are then exaggerated by far-right extremists, but excluding them from Wikipedia on that basis would be censorship.

as we watch Talk:Sarah_Jeong
It's okay to criticize groups of people who have been structurally oppressive, including white people, men, and police. It is not a personal attack to say so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

FranzBoas was immediately banned for making remarks like that. GorillaWarfare was on the Arbitration Committee.
User avatar
hyatt
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Postby CrowsNest » Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:15 am

Yeah, she's not doing herself any favours. But she checked out of any kind of leadership roles on Wikipedia a while ago, so I guess she can say any old thing now. Prioritised work and real life. As you do. Still think she's lying. She realised was there was no point to doing anything on the behavioural management side of things, not with the state of Wikipedia now, so she sees it as far easier to try to change the world by manipulating the content. Let someone else be the referee.

In this environment, who wants to be a referee?
Once columnist's opinion is not encyclopedic. Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
1. Fuck off
2. You are deliberately ignoring the context
3. Fuck off

Context:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/opin ... ction.html

New York Times columnist Bret Stephens

Wikipedia's settled reality.......
The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media .... Critics characterized her tweets as being racist
Stephens is neither a Conservative or writing on social media. Neither is he really a critic. He's a noted columnist in a reliable source, the very same reliable source this whole controversy is about, telling it like it is, warts and all.

Gamaliel, and all the other Wikipediots, simply don't want to hear it, because they are not remotely interested in writing an encyclopedia, a key part of which is ensuring your articles reflect all significant viewpoints published in reliable sources (a.k.a neutrality).

The game they are playing here, all of them, is to find whatever excuses you can go exclude the narrative you don't agree with.

In theory, and Gorilla Warfare at least showed the sort of bravery and sense to do it before she checked out and donned her fatigues, it is Arbcom's role to identify and remove such people, and if they are all over the place in any specific topic, as they are here, tnen lay waste to it, to ensure a New Beginning.

GW stepped down, handing her seat to Opabina Regalis, who skated in on the 'not your rock the boat kind of woman' ticket. So everyone is happy now. They can keep choosing what their settled reality is, and blocking anyone who points out the Emperor is neked.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Postby CrowsNest » Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:20 am

Sean Jackson, Chairman of the Board for the Black Republican Caucus of Florida, is not deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. This may or may not be justifiable depending on how you view the shifting sands of their subjective requirement for in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Which is of course easily skewed, consciously or otherwise, by a biased community, in favour of people with the right views and skin colour, and vice versa.

What is undeniable however, is that there is absolutely no good reason why someone with his profile within the Black Republican movement, deserves recognition on this list.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... epublicans

He's is being denied that right/privelage, whatever you want to call it, forcefully and persistently, by a single Wikipedia editor, and a corrupt Administrator who reflexively defends that editor in whatever he does. Such is the corruption here, that Administrator is perhaps the last remaining person on Wikipedia who even believes that editor would make a good Administrator themselves, having been one previously, before being removed after a racist tirade.

The editor, "Malik Shabbazz", claims to be black, and you can believe that as much as you can believe any such claim on Wikipedia, but who through their edits and words over the years, is undeniable staunchly Democratic, and borderline militant with it.

The Administrator, "Drmies", is undeniably white, and claims to be anti-racist, a claim not really backed by his actions, particularly in his ongoing defence of Malik. But he too is also undeniably Democratic, frequently using Wikipedia to issue blanket condemnations of those whose views he doesn't agree with. A recent drive by edit to worsen the Wikipedia image of a black female academic whose views he doesn't agree with, is typical of his daily activity.

There's no way this exclusion of Jackson from this list would be seen as defensible by any properly assembled group of people, representative of a cross section of colour and politics. Since collecting such a group will never be possible on Wikipedia, because the community overall is horrifically biased in their politics and their stance on race, which is inherently tied into the view of is an indivisible Democratic cause, this position will be maintained.

Their version of settled reality.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Postby CrowsNest » Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:55 am

If you're writing neutrally, it shouldn't be possible to tell what your 'side' is, your only side being for truth, or a fair and balanced presentation of competing ideas.

That used to be how Wikipedia was meant to work. In theory.

These days, not so much.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bull ... le_sources

Pretty obvious what side this genius believes you should be on if you want to be writing for Wikipedia, if you know what's good for you. Don't wanna get that tag of being disruptive now, do you? Be a shame to mess up that pretty clean record of yours.

He's not talking about you of course. Just the bad people. You're not bad, right? You've got the right beliefs, don't you?

Unbelievable. So blatant. If you spend more time writing caveats to your thesis and padding it out with faux article content, than you do actually writing your thesis, then you done fucked up somewhere.

He has, bizarrely, tried to hide it. Not out of shame or embarrassment though. Just until he figures out a way to make it a policy. Never before have I heard the concept of a "private essay" on Wikipedia, not to be read until it gains wide acceptance. But it must exist, because the author of this pile of garbage desperate!y wants you to know he do Wikipedia good.

He has a very long user page which makes grand claims about how he understands Wikipedia's mission and basic concepts, like how to achieve neutrality. I can only presume, if he stands by this essay, that he must have simply copied it all from somewhere else.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Content Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest