Political bias and squabbling

[StephenBryant7]

I wouldn't consider them "far-left" per se, but they are very left-leaning. They don't even have reliable sources be conservative news outlets, such as Fox News anymore.

[Bbb23sucks]

I wouldn't consider them "far-left" per se, but they are very left-leaning. They don't even have reliable sources be conservative news outlets, such as Fox News anymore.

I wouldn't say they have a left-wing bias. A socially progressive one, sure. But economically? Center at best. Americans have been led to believe that "the left" is progressive neoliberals because there is no actual left-wing movement in this country.

They don't just block conservative source, they block many left-wing news outlets as well: https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... one#p24133

[RetroidHooman]

I wouldn't consider them "far-left" per se, but they are very left-leaning. They don't even have reliable sources be conservative news outlets, such as Fox News anymore.

This is one of the reasons the dismissive attitude of "anyone can edit it" used in response to complaints about the quality of, or bias in, articles is nonsense. Wikipedia as a matter of its policy standards engages in favoritism toward liberal news outlets. It's true some of the further-left sites can't be cited under most circumstances, but I don't agree with that either. Different news sites with different editorial lines report on different things and different details others may ignore, usually intentionally; they may also be dishonest no matter what alleged reputation for good reporting they have.
Since an unbiased news outlet isn't possible, diversity is the next best thing. That's how Sanger says Wikipedia's neutral POV was intended to function, "perspective" as he phrases it.

[Cla68]

The current political establishment situation, which Wikipedia generally tries to support, is a little more complicated than basic left wing vs right wing. It seems to mainly be a bunch of affluent elitists and globalists using whatever political tactic or ideology that they think will work to help them establish and maintain control. Right now it consists of mainly left wing tropes, but not completely.

The broad international government support for big pharma and other large corporations, for example, isn't a traditionally left wing movement. Also, the left used to heavily criticize the treatment of women and homosexuals in Islamic societies, until the globalists decided about 10 years ago that they wanted mass immigration from those countries into the West and suddenly the left stopped complaining about human rights in Muslim societies.

Observers have been struggling to find a good name for the current, authoritarian political movement trying to control the world. I've heard labels like "Marxo-fascism", "corporate fascism", "Marxo-capitalism," "New world order", "New normal", "post-modernist fascism", etc. Like other authoritarian political movements in the past such as the original fascism and Nazism, it's a hybrid left-right ideology which currently leans a little more towards the left.

So, why does Wikipedia currently mainly attract drones and NPCs who dedicate almost all their waking hours to promote the establishment line rather than anti-authoritarian, free-thinking, independent, creative, rebels?

[ericbarbour]

The current political establishment situation, which Wikipedia generally tries to support, is a little more complicated than basic left wing vs right wing. It seems to mainly be a bunch of affluent elitists and globalists using whatever political tactic or ideology that they think will work to help them establish and maintain control. Right now it consists of mainly left wing tropes, but not completely.

Agreed. WP is biased by the nuts who achieved adminship, but it's a more complicated and nuanced mess than simple socialist-left beliefs. More to the point: Wikipedia fanatics will deny all of this and shriek that anyone bringing it up is a "conspiracy theorist".

So, why does Wikipedia currently mainly attract drones and NPCs who dedicate almost all their waking hours to promote the establishment line rather than anti-authoritarian, free-thinking, independent, creative, rebels?

Because both Wales and Sanger had a pro-authoritarian bent with the added "spice" of libertarianism. Such people want to be the authorities, not merely in favor of them. Wales won, pushed Sanger out---and then started installing suck-ups who would support his idiotic reign as "king of wiki". Which is slowly coming to an end, as the suck-ups he originally installed turn on him, quit in disgust, or simply die off. If they are "replaced" (and often aren't), the replacements tend to be patrollers who don't give a shit about political issues or biasing anything--they just get their rocks off deleting and banning. The content that isn't deleted usually stays broken and biased.

Perhaps this should be merged with an existing thread.
https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... =34&t=2191

[Bbb23sucks]

Perhaps this should be merged with an existing thread.
https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... =34&t=2191

Done.

[ericbarbour]

Well? Anyone want to quantify what Wikipedians believe to be a "conspiracy theory"?

You can't nail jelly to a tree. And you can't nail Wiki-Fanatics down on what they "believe". Apart from a house bias against pseudoscience, "quack" medical practices, and Scientology. Mostly leftovers of editwars more than 10 years ago.

THEY can nail YOU down, though. And ban you from their stupid little project forever, and shriek over and over "NOT OF THE BODY" etc.

[Philomath]

A conspiracy theory, to the average Wikipedian, is whatever they are told is a conspiracy theory by the 'reliable sources'. Are you folks aware of the wiki-slogan "Verifiability is truth"? That may be the winner of the most Orwellian sentence I've ever seen someone write unironically on the internet.

The more I analyze the situation on Wikipedia, the more I come to see that the administrative bureaucracy is held up by several thousand worker drones. Like the aptly named Dronebogus. They aren't paid actors, or products of government intelligence services. But they're un-witting, willing tools and useful idiots. Why do these drones flock to Wikipedia?

[Ognistysztorm]

A conspiracy theory, to the average Wikipedian, is whatever they are told is a conspiracy theory by the 'reliable sources'. Are you folks aware of the wiki-slogan "Verifiability is truth"? That may be the winner of the most Orwellian sentence I've ever seen someone write unironically on the internet.

The more I analyze the situation on Wikipedia, the more I come to see that the administrative bureaucracy is held up by several thousand worker drones. Like the aptly named Dronebogus. They aren't paid actors, or products of government intelligence services. But they're un-witting, willing tools and useful idiots. Why do these drones flock to Wikipedia?

They want addictive power since Wikipedia is held by so many to be the altar of history, although that changed a bit last month with the launch of alternative Justapedia.

Can I give some addition to your Grayzone draft, specifically on how they might violate the law through their treatment of rule offenders?

[Philomath]

Yes, please PM me any time.