Political bias and squabbling

[badmachine]

probably the most biased line ive seen in a while is in a section of the "Unite the Right rally" article:

According to analyses in the Washington Post in 2020, Trump and his supporters attempted to distort and rewrite the history of the rally, continuing to claim falsely that there were peaceful elements to the right-wing protest. Fact-checkers emphasized that the rally-goers consisted solely of neo-Nazis and white supremacists, and that "virtually anyone watching cable news coverage or looking at the pictures of the event would know that."[395][396]

(emphasis added)

its a ridiculous claim made by fake news media and repeated by wikipedia but entirely predictable

[boredbird]

probably the most biased line ive seen in a while is in a section of the "Unite the Right rally" article:

"Efforts by Trump and his supporters to rewrite the history of the rally"

Why does such a section even exist? Just describe what did happen and leave it at that. Unless the goal is "This article is part of series to discredit Donald Trump." What's that called again "goatbacking " or something?

[sashi]

probably the most biased line ive seen in a while is in a section of the "Unite the Right rally" article:

"Efforts by Trump and his supporters to rewrite the history of the rally"

Why does such a section even exist? Just describe what did happen and leave it at that. Unless the goal is "This article is part of series to discredit Donald Trump." What's that called again "goatbacking " or something?

Looks like MastCell : diff

[boredbird]

Looks like MastCell : diff

The previous section title was

=== The question of whether Trump was inept rather than malevolent ===

[Archer]

I'll go out on a limb and say that a Wikipedia critique is better off without using the word "bias" at all, for several reasons.

1) Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality" is satisfied by faithful summary representation (i.e. propaganda laundering) of western mass media, which is highly consolidated. In other words, Wikipedia does not need to introduce bias to propagandize heavily distorted information. They can adhere to this debased standard without actually being objective.

2) People have been desensitized to stock phrases like "systemic bias", "political bias", etc. and probably won't be receptive. This is just a guess on my part, but people are sick of the dog-and-pony show the media puts on and an argument written using the usual political dialect is unlikely to move them.

3) Individual editors accused of bias are probably not interpreted by the public as a reflection upon Wikipedia as a whole. This is also speculation, but I'm fairly confident in it. Wikipedia propagandizes and markets itself as being open, 'inclusive', etc. and this implies that a certain number of users will turn out to be less than savory. The upshot, I hypothesize, is that the public will allow them quite a bit of slack when it comes to the scandals of individual editors/admins or cliques of them.

I have a few ideas about getting around this armor, and they're mostly just obvious consequences of the above observations. My first point above might be approached as a policy critique, such as the (admittedly rough) draft I have written starting here https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 836#p29836, over several pages. For 2), the obvious solution is simply to avoid the dialect. I have been doing this to the best of my ability for some time now. For 3), I believe that statistical techniques may be able to help demonstrate not simply isolated scandals but common patterns of administration and behavior, indicating that it isn't just a few bad apples. I know I'm being vague with this last point, but I do have a few ideas along these lines if anyone cares to hear about them.

Just my two cents. I have no way to confirm these hunches so take them for what they're worth. It's like walking blindfolded.

[Archer]

Also - and please do take this constructively - it's not that words and phrases like "bias", "liberal", "the right", "communist", words ending in ist, ism, tion, etc. don't ostensibly include certain things that are worth criticizing. Rather, they are trite and represent vague, ill-defined ideas. Using them very rarely makes a critique sharper or more specific, but instead dilutes it with a phrase the reader has heard/read tens of thousands of times, mostly in the political mass media."Bias" is not one among the worst, but if you say that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias", the implication is that you have a "conservative bias" and are consequently no more objective than Wikipedia. See how that works? Yet one need not use this argot in the first place, you can always be more precise than that.

If WS is interested, I may (at some point) compile this and my policy critique (including the above) into a short summary article.

[badmachine]

Also - and please do take this constructively - it's not that words and phrases like "bias", "liberal", "the right", "communist", words ending in ist, ism, tion, etc. don't ostensibly include certain things that are worth criticizing. Rather, they are trite and represent vague, ill-defined ideas. Using them very rarely makes a critique sharper or more specific, but instead dilutes it with a phrase the reader has heard/read tens of thousands of times, mostly in the political mass media."Bias" is not one among the worst, but if you say that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias", the implication is that you have a "conservative bias" and are consequently no more objective than Wikipedia. See how that works? Yet one need not use this argot in the first place, you can always be more precise than that.

If WS is interested, I may (at some point) compile this and my policy critique (including the above) into a short summary article.

i would be interested in reading such a thing. it seems so much critique of important things can be rejected by simply reciting the words "racism" or "antisemitism".

[ericbarbour]

1) Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality" is satisfied by faithful summary representation (i.e. propaganda laundering) of western mass media, which is highly consolidated. In other words, Wikipedia does not need to introduce bias to propagandize heavily distorted information. They can adhere to this debased standard without actually being objective.

Agreed. They have forced the issue by declaring "mainstream news outlets" as "reliable". Nearly all of them are owned by for-profit corporations, which will tend to tell their readers and viewers whatever they want to see or hear.

There's a master list of sources they've been squabbling about for literal decades. All neatly color-coded for idiots--who really should read the summary column full of exceptions and caveats, but rarely do. Most of this is the result of past RFCs which only represent MORE inane squabbling. But almost everything is marked "There is consensus". Often there ISN'T. Fucking liars.

That goddamn phrase should be tattooed on Jimbo's forehead.

That list was only started in 2018. Before that, if someone wanted to know if a media outlet was "okay", they were stuck. Put it in as a reference, and it will either stay, or some officious little asshole will remove it without a by-your-leave. Ask for advice on a noticeboard and you will be personally attacked for not knowing the "speshul seekrets".

The talkpage of that article is an ugly babbling mess. Anyplace you see Headbomb routinely is a bad place. Everything on the list is subject to being squabbled over, because some faceless rando wants to either "purify" something, or bury it.

I think the listing for The Register is funny as hell. They've been running open attacks on the Magical Wiki since 2005, and so this "sorta-official list" says:

The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Some editors say that The Register is biased or opinionated on topics involving Wikipedia.

HOW DARE THEY. Sniff sniff.

3) Individual editors accused of bias are probably not interpreted by the public as a reflection upon Wikipedia as a whole. This is also speculation, but I'm fairly confident in it. Wikipedia propagandizes and markets itself as being open, 'inclusive', etc. and this implies that a certain number of users will turn out to be less than savory. The upshot, I hypothesize, is that the public will allow them quite a bit of slack when it comes to the scandals of individual editors/admins or cliques of them.

By loudly screaming how "neutral" and "reliable" their encyclogizmo is, incessantly for 20+ years, they have effectively neutralized any serious critiques. The Register, the 2008 documentary, the 2010 documentary, the 2021 documentary, and people like Robert McHenry, Andrew Keen, and Evgeny Morozov have all taken well-deserved shots at Wikipedia, the WMF, and Jimbo. And had little or no real effect. Because they have more blind support among people in the tech industry than detractors, the Wiki-Bastards are "judged by their peers" to be poor innocent little lambies in the vast stinking meadow of the internet.

I have a few ideas about getting around this armor

Please take your best shot. Throw it on a blog if you can't find a publisher or other outlet. Just don't let it sit bottled up.

[Archer]

Also - and please do take this constructively - it's not that words and phrases like "bias", "liberal", "the right", "communist", words ending in ist, ism, tion, etc. don't ostensibly include certain things that are worth criticizing. Rather, they are trite and represent vague, ill-defined ideas. Using them very rarely makes a critique sharper or more specific, but instead dilutes it with a phrase the reader has heard/read tens of thousands of times, mostly in the political mass media."Bias" is not one among the worst, but if you say that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias", the implication is that you have a "conservative bias" and are consequently no more objective than Wikipedia. See how that works? Yet one need not use this argot in the first place, you can always be more precise than that.

If WS is interested, I may (at some point) compile this and my policy critique (including the above) into a short summary article.

i would be interested in reading such a thing. it seems so much critique of important things can be rejected by simply reciting the words "racism" or "antisemitism".

If you make a fair, objective critique and avoid using the political argot (which is any word or phrase you hear frequently in the mass media and infrequently in other contexts), then your argument stands. You might still be called an anti-semite or a racist, but an objective observer will know that you are fair. As with any other argument, it helps if one is specific and precise.

The words "racism" and "anti-semitism" are applied to everything from factual beliefs to genocide. Even a mild and well-earned critique will be called "racist" if the subject is some ethnic demographic, with the exception western caucasians who are habituated to this criticism (which is fine) but frequently reminded by the media and corporate policy that they must never dish it out (which is not fine). Even with Israel attempting the ethnic cleansing of Gaza as we speak, few will ever point out that the lobby is comprised mostly of American Jewery, and while there are exceptions (I think there's some odd christian denomination that's supposed to be active in the lobby), none of them are particularly consequential afaik. There are many Jews who disapprove of this and the lobby's actions, supposedly, yet here we are. It's an interesting trick because the phrase "Israel lobby" implies that it's an Israeli organization, which isn't true. If I were to call it the "Israel lobby", I'd arguably be misleading people. Yet if I were to make a critique against the American Jewry for supporting the lobby and thus Israel itself (at the expense of everyone else in America), while Israel commits the full-blown ethnic cleansing of Gaza, against Palestinians who are by definition Semitic, I'd be called an anti-semite. This status quo is really intolerable.

[Archer]

Throw it on a blog if you can't find a publisher or other outlet. Just don't let it sit bottled up.

I'd planned just to post it on the forums here (I've sort-of published most of the rough stuff already, though it could stand to be edited and organized and put in an article). I'm not optimistic about finding an actual publisher, so I probably won't bother unless someone offers. I might start a blog, but it's hard for people to find a random blog. Google does not favor blogs. WPO straight threw me out, with little more than a brief eulogy spoken by MidsizeJake while the incoherent gender enthusiasts babbled excitedly at my departure. Also, as I said, it's partly speculation on my part. I'd need to do some data collection and research to make it into something more concrete. I suppose I'm capable of that but I'm not sure I can find the motivation.


Edit: Although there was that book by TJ Coles, which I picked up when I saw a thread about it here (I think it was you that recommended it). I've not read it yet but it looked good and I wanted to support the author. Incidentally, does he make any similar points? From just flipping through it for a few moments, it seemed to focus more on the content of the propaganda (which is totally fine) than the linguistic and psychological strategies they use to manipulate public behavior and beliefs. I could be wrong though, as I said I haven't read it. He tackles the IP issue, so he probably has some skill at least.

Ultimately though, one has to focus on breaking down the political dialect itself, which I assume he does not do since the word "liberal" is in the very title (I wonder if the publisher demanded that). The language is what makes it all work and the most potent critique would be one that undermines the media's langue de bois. That's the foundation; if you kick that out from under all the crap piled atop it you'd be doing very well indeed.