Research Article: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Research Article: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

Post by wexter » Wed May 24, 2023 2:22 am

an online encyclopedia
Wikipedia's missing key element, and secondary element (per chat GPT)
"Editorial Board and Contributors: Many encyclopedias have an editorial board or team responsible for overseeing the content's quality and accuracy. Additionally, the contributors, who are subject matter experts or scholars, are acknowledged for their contributions to specific articles or sections."
The "story" being told (and believed by most) is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: this is PR or issue framing
Framing and Selective Storytelling: By framing information in a certain way or selectively highlighting specific aspects, individuals or organizations can shape the narrative to emphasize certain perspectives, downplay others, or guide the audience's interpretation. The choice of language, imagery, and tone can significantly influence how the information is perceived.
With no editorial board or process Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia;

Only a minuscule .6% of all articles met any kind of standard of oversight as "certified good articles".

This forum would not exist were Wikipedia an encyclopedia - the insanity of Wikipedia is palpable and it would not be present or visible in any effective endeavor.

My point is that to call them "crazy Eddie insane yes" call them an "encyclopedia no."
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Externally" Wikipedia is a fraud as defined - the initial fraudulent representation was quite intentional... claims of accuracy are clearly fraudulent

It is a giant lie on the outside; on the inside it is an insane social network packed with mentally ill participants interacting poorly with each-other.

On any given day you can see the insanity here - you might have to push through the gibberish which is insanity as well;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI

Sample as follows
Reverse block on MrPinkingShears: Having just looked over the discussion in question, unless there are revdel'd comments I couldn't see, MrPinkingShears was indeffed for accusing 22spears of nothing more than several other editors have done in endorsing his block. Seriously? If all the personal attack MPS issued was "this guy is pushing a pro-pedophilia POV," there ought to be multiple indefs handed out to participants in this discussion. Ravenswing 08:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The insanity is in the closet, hiding behind some very effective and longstanding narrative framing and PR.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
Ognistysztorm
Sucks Critic
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:39 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 191 times

Re: Research Article: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

Post by Ognistysztorm » Wed May 24, 2023 4:43 am

While we're waiting for the scandal to go onto major news network, here is ChatGPT's extrapolation of how it'll turn out:
What are the effects if Wikipedia community failed to correct the distortions?


If distortions or inaccuracies persist on Wikipedia despite efforts to correct them, it can have several potential effects:

Misinformation spread: Wikipedia is one of the most popular online sources of information, and people often turn to it for quick reference. If distortions or inaccuracies remain uncorrected, it can perpetuate false information and contribute to the spread of misinformation.

Impact on reputation: Wikipedia's credibility relies on its commitment to accuracy and neutrality. If it fails to address distortions or inaccuracies, its reputation as a reliable source of information may be undermined, leading to a loss of trust among users.

Academic and professional concerns: Wikipedia is often used by students, researchers, and professionals as a starting point for research or information gathering. If distortions persist, it can negatively impact the quality and reliability of their work if they unknowingly rely on inaccurate information from Wikipedia.

Legal and ethical implications: In cases where distortions involve sensitive topics or historical events like the Holocaust, there can be legal and ethical concerns. It may be seen as a failure to uphold standards of accuracy, respect, and responsibility, which could result in reputational damage and potential legal repercussions.

Public outcry and criticism: If distortions persist despite being widely recognized and highlighted by researchers or experts, it can lead to public outcry and criticism against Wikipedia. This may prompt discussions about the platform's policies, editorial practices, and the need for more stringent measures to address inaccuracies.

It's important to note that the Wikipedia community generally strives to address inaccuracies and distortions promptly. They rely on a collaborative editing process and the input of knowledgeable users to maintain the accuracy and reliability of content. However, challenges may arise due to the sheer volume of content, varying perspectives, and potential biases among contributors.

Reinforcement of biases: If distortions align with existing biases or narratives, their persistence can reinforce those biases and contribute to the polarization of viewpoints, hindering a balanced understanding of the subject matter.

Discrediting of experts and scholars: If experts or scholars who have identified the distortions are ignored or their contributions dismissed, it can undermine their credibility and discourage them from engaging with Wikipedia in the future, potentially leading to a loss of valuable expertise.

Impact on educational institutions: Educational institutions often discourage or prohibit the use of Wikipedia as a source due to concerns about its reliability. If distortions persist, it can further discourage the use of Wikipedia in academic settings, limiting its potential as a learning resource.

Diminished user engagement: If users perceive that Wikipedia is not responsive to concerns about distortions or inaccuracies, they may become less engaged with the platform, resulting in a decline in user contributions, editing efforts, and overall participation.

Loss of user confidence: When users encounter distortions or inaccuracies on Wikipedia, it can erode their confidence in the platform. They may start seeking alternative sources of information, undermining the goal of providing accessible and reliable knowledge.

Damage to the Wikimedia Foundation's reputation: The Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, may face criticism for its handling of distortions. Failure to address these issues can lead to reputational damage and potentially affect public perception of the organization's commitment to accurate and unbiased information.

User avatar
Boink Boink
Sucks Fan
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Research Article: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

Post by Boink Boink » Wed May 24, 2023 11:34 am

Unsurprisingly, the ChatGPT output appears convincing and perhaps even compelling to a lay person.

To an expert in Wikipedia, you can easily see that it is not much more than a summary of what Wikipedia editors and the Foundation have said about themselves, in settings where sober self reflection is required. This stuff is everywhere, ironically because it is found in Wikipedia. It is already "knowledge".

Critics know different, and the flaws between this output and observed reality (and incresingly, academic study of Wikipedia) are quite glaring. This is where a lack of in depth knowledgeable mainstream coverage of Wikipedia, and the presence of obvioisly biased shite like Slate, becomes hugely relevant.

A lot of the things being talked about as possible, have of course already happened. They are not present here in this output, because Wikipedia and the Foundation don't like acknowledging that their fears are coming true and their attempts to course correct are failing because their model is fatally flawed. The epic failure to effectively respond to the massive criticism and reputational damage arising from Wikipedia being one giant sausage fest, for example.

It is of course, especially in hindsight, completely laughable to think that mere appeals to their better selves and simply asking good people to dive into a lake of shit, would change Wikipedia's culture, but they quite literally have no other levers to effect change. All it did, if it did anything, was bring more activists, more division, and thus an even greater sense that on Wikipedia, sober expertise, mutual respect and a collaborative spirit doesn't mean shit to either side. It being well understood by those who freely choose it as a hobby and quickly become addicted, that Wikipedia is all about WINNING.

The stench is too oppressive now to persuade non-addicts to stay for long enough to become part of the trillion word effort that would effect real change. One nasty horrible bastard or a small clique of best friends can as a result now effectively rule over huge swathes of Wikipedia content and policy areas. We can all name them. They're not as they claim to be, the best of the best defending Wikipedia, quite the opposite.

Editors either do battle willingly, or avoid conflict for their own selfish reasons (standing up to bullies is hard and dealing with assholes is exhausting). There are no peacemakers. There are no referees. The wikipolice are the most corrupt among them, and when not doing seriously bad shit, usually to protect or excuse a bully or an asshole or an editor who is pushing the right POV, now spend most of their time virtue signalling and defending the honor of the badge. Wikipedia is America in so many ways. It baffles the rest of the civilised world. These are but minor but correctable issues in UK policing, for example. Americans would be amazed at how the very worst policing scandals in our largest and almost powerful police force here, are called a quiet Tuesday in small town America.

It's a sorry sight indeed to see studies being talked about in the safe space project within a project that is "Women In Red", having absolutely no effect on the encyclopedia, neither culture or content. Proof positive that Wikipedia has failed to be what it set out to be. A dynamic, self correcting, bureaucracy averse, expertise respecting force for societal good. It is the exact opposite. It keeps women in their place, in their designated room doing their designated work.

And sadly, they readily accept being put in their place and given their chores, knowing that the price to be paid for objecting, is a Wikipedia black eye. They creditably have their male alies. But they are more like your gay friend, rather than men who have accepted the patriarchy is a thing and want to genuinely help, without furthering the trope that women are helpless fragile creatures.

Wikipedia violence is quite literally policed by a panel of fourteen men and one women (who is clearly not a feminist and gets elected precisely because of it). Under this system, unsurprisingly, habitually hostile exhaustingly combative ideologically driven editors living out persecution fantasies, can survive on Wikipedia for fifteen years and still avoid a ban by a vote of 7 to 4. People are focusing on the effect on Holocaust distortion, which is important, but equally important is the effect on Wikipedia's reputation among 50% of the world.

Outcomes like this are normal, routine. Many inside Wikipedia even suggested the mere possibility of a ban was ridiculous, right up to the very top. The old white American man who presided over Wikipedia's first two decades of mistakes, used his position as a retired member of that panel, now resting in comfortable contentment as some kind institutional sage, to clearly influence the younger members, some elected on promises of change.

His feminist female contemporaries are long gone, as is the institutional memory of the high point of having three such women on the panel, the meagre effect of a decade of negative headlines. A Wikipedian to his core, he lacks the integrity to reflect on what he has personally done to foster and protect this culture, and only ever posits what others can do. His name is not Jimmy Wales. ChatGPT only knows good things of this man, who of course has his own very glowing Wikipedia biography.

Wikipedia is not a force for change, it is living proof that even in these enlightened times, the patriarchy doesn't have to do shit if the women in their society are genuinely powerless and overtly discriminated against. Wikipedia is Saudi Arabia. And that might be unfair to Saudi Arabia!

Sure, usually around elections, the question is openly asked, why don't more women even stand for election? The one women there now only very reluctantly stood to avoid the embarrassment to Wikipedia that a 15-0 outcome represents. No surprise that she is currently inactive. Like most awkward questions, the Wikipedia model ensures they go nowhere and the status quo is preserved. Effective answers require honest self reflection and a genuine desire to change, not a mere concern that bad headlines will deprive you of your favourite way to waste time.

Poor old ChatGPT with its optimistic and outdated output is a naive child when you consider things like that sausage dominance factor at the highest level are one of the many real, indisputable facts that speak to the likelihood that the Wikipedia model can ever do anything to correct mistakes in how It was set up and has evolved. It being rather obvious nobody set out to design Wikipedia to be a male dominated affair.

Wikipedia has failed. You can't know that unless you know what it set out to be. You can't know that until you appreciate that Wikipedia long ago stopped having a dream or a mission, it instead simply became a self serving act in survival. It is this survival strategy that means that in the face of falling donations, Wikipedia doesn't address the immediate cause (brand damage), they cut costs. Editors don't reflect on their part, they focus only on how well paid the Foundation staff who have presided over failure are. Failing to accept that in the Wikipedia model, paid staff have an almost negligible effect on the things harming the brand.

It is Wikipedia editor's survival choice not to stand up to bullies and arrest corrupt cops, that harms the brand. These are survival choices, but they are being freely made. Nobody is forcing these people to be selfish, self interested cowards. Wikipedia is not Saudi Arabia in that sense. It is America. A failure.

Most of the "may" things talked about in the output have actually happened simply because Wikipedia editors have the freedom to pick and choose what they do. So unsurprisingly, they pick the easy stuff, and the model precludes paying people to make up the difference. This is why even basic shit like properly sourcing all of its content and steadily but rapidly improving their most important articles to an encyclopedic standard (true, complete, unbiased), is a very, very, low priority. Even if it did pay people to do it, the difference is in fact 95% of the work needed to secure Wikipedia a decent reputation as an authoritative source. So it's clear that Wikipedia would bankrupt itself on Day 1 if it ever tried to be a real encylopedia. Hence it does not even try.

Increased regulation and reputational damage of a weird website that is part social media part time wasting hobby but which is consistently and brazenly falsely advertised as an "encyclopedia" was inevitable. It is just regrettable that it is taking decades. Even so, on current evidence, Wikipedia might be lucky to reach 30.

ChatGPT knows nothing of these obvious realities. Its output still reflects the hopeful, deluded, if not downright dishonest version of Wikipedia's role, potential and future. Wikipedia keeps its dirtiest secrets very well. You have to know exactly which rocks to turn over, exactly what kind of meat to bait your traps with, to reveal them. Wikipedia can fool AI easily. Writing garbage that reflects their hope and dreams but is impervious to reality, is their specialism.

Wikipedia has contributed to the polarisation of society (and thus the collapse of faith in politics or even democracy), precisely because the editors are biased towards left wing viewpoints (and I refer here to the mainstream, such as whether or not the US Government is being responsible in how It has inexorably raised the debt ceiling in the last few decades).

It's been fucking hilarious in a very sick way, watching America dabble with fascism, even though the things that led to the rise of Hitler and the mistakes his opponents made is such a well studied well understood topic that even Wikipedia does a good job of documenting it (Whermacht porn aside).

But it is precisely because of the left and Wikipedia, that by the time the threat arrived, the people were already numb to the cries of LOOK OUT, HE'S A NAZI! It had no effect. History repeated itself, almost. Close enough that people died uneccesarily, and continue to die.

Wikipedia's uselessness as the supposed modern alternative to being well read and a deep thinker, was proven. ChatGPT knows nothing of this, because the left refuse to admit it, and the right long ago stopped caring.

ChatGPT is entirely unaware that well before Trump, Wikipedia proactively promoted itself as the only place on the internet that is impervious to misinformation, and as Trump rose to power, they were extremely proactive in "correcting" what appeared to them to be "false".

If Wikipedia is truly "one of the most popular online sources of information, and people often turn to it for quick reference." and if it is true that if it weren't for the heroic efforts of the brave Wikipedia editors in the face of the Trump supporters, Wikipedia "can perpetuate false information and contribute to the spread of misinformation.", if this was all indisputable truth before Trump rose to power, how did it happen?

The way Wikipedia editors typically answer this conundrum, namely by saying quite literally that half the American population are racist, brainwashed or just straight up insane, is what proves beyond doubt that they truly are blind to the way they intentionally distorted the reality of American society, politics and culture in the run up to that election.

They presented their narrative, not the truth, because they wanted so badly for it to be true, and they genuinely seem to think that Wikipedia has the power to turn opinion into fact.

This is why they will never do anything to fix this problem, since for them, it is not a problem.

If it kills Wikipedia, they'll blame the Jews.

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: Research Article: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

Post by ericbarbour » Wed May 24, 2023 5:15 pm

Thanks for catching that. And it ran in the Contemporary Jewry journal. Amazing.
Boink boink wrote:The way Wikipedia editors typically answer this conundrum, namely by saying quite literally that half the American population are racist, brainwashed or just straight up insane, is what proves beyond doubt that they truly are blind to the way they intentionally distorted the reality of American society, politics and culture in the run up to that election.
They presented their narrative, not the truth, because they wanted so badly for it to be true, and they genuinely seem to think that Wikipedia has the power to turn opinion into fact.
SOME of the insiders operated on that basis. Before 2012 it was routine on en-WP to glorify Judaism and anyone with a Jewish family background, and to attack and belittle anyone (including some Israelis and Jews!) who had engaged in public criticism of Israel. There were so many brutal wars and backstabbings, and so much content bias, they finally had to back off and allow actual facts showing that Jews aren't "better" than others, and that Israel has a lot of internal problems. Bias of this type still occurs, but not with the brutal extremism and the backing of numerous powerful admins that were routine from 2005 to 2012.

But too damn many of the insiders are fixated on anime, videogaming, sports and other self-involved trivia to even notice. Extreme nerds can be very good office workers, but don't let them seize control of the office.
While we're waiting for the scandal to go onto major news network
Been watching that. So far the only mentions of the Arbcom decision have been in Israeli media.....

SkepticalHistorian
Sucks Fan
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 4:00 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Research Article: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

Post by SkepticalHistorian » Wed May 24, 2023 8:50 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 5:15 pm
Thanks for catching that. And it ran in the Contemporary Jewry journal. Amazing.
Also “Wikipedia’s Longest Hoax” the phony Warsaw Concentration Camp gas chamber story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_co ... camp_story

That was on Wikipedia for 15 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Poeticbent

How many more Wikipedia hoaxes are waiting to be exposed or, prevented from being exposed?

This looks like a hoax, it’s poorly referenced and created by a subsequently blocked editor with a monkey’s ass on his talk-page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_skull_collection
Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:7mike5000
Last edited by SkepticalHistorian on Wed May 24, 2023 9:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Ognistysztorm
Sucks Critic
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:39 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 191 times

Re: Research Article: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

Post by Ognistysztorm » Wed May 24, 2023 8:52 pm

Boink Boink wrote:
Wed May 24, 2023 11:34 am
Unsurprisingly, the ChatGPT output appears convincing and perhaps even compelling to a lay person.

To an expert in Wikipedia, you can easily see that it is not much more than a summary of what Wikipedia editors and the Foundation have said about themselves, in settings where sober self reflection is required. This stuff is everywhere, ironically because it is found in Wikipedia. It is already "knowledge".

Critics know different, and the flaws between this output and observed reality (and incresingly, academic study of Wikipedia) are quite glaring. This is where a lack of in depth knowledgeable mainstream coverage of Wikipedia, and the presence of obvioisly biased shite like Slate, becomes hugely relevant.

A lot of the things being talked about as possible, have of course already happened. They are not present here in this output, because Wikipedia and the Foundation don't like acknowledging that their fears are coming true and their attempts to course correct are failing because their model is fatally flawed. The epic failure to effectively respond to the massive criticism and reputational damage arising from Wikipedia being one giant sausage fest, for example.

It is of course, especially in hindsight, completely laughable to think that mere appeals to their better selves and simply asking good people to dive into a lake of shit, would change Wikipedia's culture, but they quite literally have no other levers to effect change. All it did, if it did anything, was bring more activists, more division, and thus an even greater sense that on Wikipedia, sober expertise, mutual respect and a collaborative spirit doesn't mean shit to either side. It being well understood by those who freely choose it as a hobby and quickly become addicted, that Wikipedia is all about WINNING.

The stench is too oppressive now to persuade non-addicts to stay for long enough to become part of the trillion word effort that would effect real change. One nasty horrible bastard or a small clique of best friends can as a result now effectively rule over huge swathes of Wikipedia content and policy areas. We can all name them. They're not as they claim to be, the best of the best defending Wikipedia, quite the opposite.

Editors either do battle willingly, or avoid conflict for their own selfish reasons (standing up to bullies is hard and dealing with assholes is exhausting). There are no peacemakers. There are no referees. The wikipolice are the most corrupt among them, and when not doing seriously bad shit, usually to protect or excuse a bully or an asshole or an editor who is pushing the right POV, now spend most of their time virtue signalling and defending the honor of the badge. Wikipedia is America in so many ways. It baffles the rest of the civilised world. These are but minor but correctable issues in UK policing, for example. Americans would be amazed at how the very worst policing scandals in our largest and almost powerful police force here, are called a quiet Tuesday in small town America.

It's a sorry sight indeed to see studies being talked about in the safe space project within a project that is "Women In Red", having absolutely no effect on the encyclopedia, neither culture or content. Proof positive that Wikipedia has failed to be what it set out to be. A dynamic, self correcting, bureaucracy averse, expertise respecting force for societal good. It is the exact opposite. It keeps women in their place, in their designated room doing their designated work.

And sadly, they readily accept being put in their place and given their chores, knowing that the price to be paid for objecting, is a Wikipedia black eye. They creditably have their male alies. But they are more like your gay friend, rather than men who have accepted the patriarchy is a thing and want to genuinely help, without furthering the trope that women are helpless fragile creatures.

Wikipedia violence is quite literally policed by a panel of fourteen men and one women (who is clearly not a feminist and gets elected precisely because of it). Under this system, unsurprisingly, habitually hostile exhaustingly combative ideologically driven editors living out persecution fantasies, can survive on Wikipedia for fifteen years and still avoid a ban by a vote of 7 to 4. People are focusing on the effect on Holocaust distortion, which is important, but equally important is the effect on Wikipedia's reputation among 50% of the world.

Outcomes like this are normal, routine. Many inside Wikipedia even suggested the mere possibility of a ban was ridiculous, right up to the very top. The old white American man who presided over Wikipedia's first two decades of mistakes, used his position as a retired member of that panel, now resting in comfortable contentment as some kind institutional sage, to clearly influence the younger members, some elected on promises of change.

His feminist female contemporaries are long gone, as is the institutional memory of the high point of having three such women on the panel, the meagre effect of a decade of negative headlines. A Wikipedian to his core, he lacks the integrity to reflect on what he has personally done to foster and protect this culture, and only ever posits what others can do. His name is not Jimmy Wales. ChatGPT only knows good things of this man, who of course has his own very glowing Wikipedia biography.

Wikipedia is not a force for change, it is living proof that even in these enlightened times, the patriarchy doesn't have to do shit if the women in their society are genuinely powerless and overtly discriminated against. Wikipedia is Saudi Arabia. And that might be unfair to Saudi Arabia!

Sure, usually around elections, the question is openly asked, why don't more women even stand for election? The one women there now only very reluctantly stood to avoid the embarrassment to Wikipedia that a 15-0 outcome represents. No surprise that she is currently inactive. Like most awkward questions, the Wikipedia model ensures they go nowhere and the status quo is preserved. Effective answers require honest self reflection and a genuine desire to change, not a mere concern that bad headlines will deprive you of your favourite way to waste time.

Poor old ChatGPT with its optimistic and outdated output is a naive child when you consider things like that sausage dominance factor at the highest level are one of the many real, indisputable facts that speak to the likelihood that the Wikipedia model can ever do anything to correct mistakes in how It was set up and has evolved. It being rather obvious nobody set out to design Wikipedia to be a male dominated affair.

Wikipedia has failed. You can't know that unless you know what it set out to be. You can't know that until you appreciate that Wikipedia long ago stopped having a dream or a mission, it instead simply became a self serving act in survival. It is this survival strategy that means that in the face of falling donations, Wikipedia doesn't address the immediate cause (brand damage), they cut costs. Editors don't reflect on their part, they focus only on how well paid the Foundation staff who have presided over failure are. Failing to accept that in the Wikipedia model, paid staff have an almost negligible effect on the things harming the brand.

It is Wikipedia editor's survival choice not to stand up to bullies and arrest corrupt cops, that harms the brand. These are survival choices, but they are being freely made. Nobody is forcing these people to be selfish, self interested cowards. Wikipedia is not Saudi Arabia in that sense. It is America. A failure.

Most of the "may" things talked about in the output have actually happened simply because Wikipedia editors have the freedom to pick and choose what they do. So unsurprisingly, they pick the easy stuff, and the model precludes paying people to make up the difference. This is why even basic shit like properly sourcing all of its content and steadily but rapidly improving their most important articles to an encyclopedic standard (true, complete, unbiased), is a very, very, low priority. Even if it did pay people to do it, the difference is in fact 95% of the work needed to secure Wikipedia a decent reputation as an authoritative source. So it's clear that Wikipedia would bankrupt itself on Day 1 if it ever tried to be a real encylopedia. Hence it does not even try.

Increased regulation and reputational damage of a weird website that is part social media part time wasting hobby but which is consistently and brazenly falsely advertised as an "encyclopedia" was inevitable. It is just regrettable that it is taking decades. Even so, on current evidence, Wikipedia might be lucky to reach 30.

ChatGPT knows nothing of these obvious realities. Its output still reflects the hopeful, deluded, if not downright dishonest version of Wikipedia's role, potential and future. Wikipedia keeps its dirtiest secrets very well. You have to know exactly which rocks to turn over, exactly what kind of meat to bait your traps with, to reveal them. Wikipedia can fool AI easily. Writing garbage that reflects their hope and dreams but is impervious to reality, is their specialism.

Wikipedia has contributed to the polarisation of society (and thus the collapse of faith in politics or even democracy), precisely because the editors are biased towards left wing viewpoints (and I refer here to the mainstream, such as whether or not the US Government is being responsible in how It has inexorably raised the debt ceiling in the last few decades).

It's been fucking hilarious in a very sick way, watching America dabble with fascism, even though the things that led to the rise of Hitler and the mistakes his opponents made is such a well studied well understood topic that even Wikipedia does a good job of documenting it (Whermacht porn aside).

But it is precisely because of the left and Wikipedia, that by the time the threat arrived, the people were already numb to the cries of LOOK OUT, HE'S A NAZI! It had no effect. History repeated itself, almost. Close enough that people died uneccesarily, and continue to die.

Wikipedia's uselessness as the supposed modern alternative to being well read and a deep thinker, was proven. ChatGPT knows nothing of this, because the left refuse to admit it, and the right long ago stopped caring.

ChatGPT is entirely unaware that well before Trump, Wikipedia proactively promoted itself as the only place on the internet that is impervious to misinformation, and as Trump rose to power, they were extremely proactive in "correcting" what appeared to them to be "false".

If Wikipedia is truly "one of the most popular online sources of information, and people often turn to it for quick reference." and if it is true that if it weren't for the heroic efforts of the brave Wikipedia editors in the face of the Trump supporters, Wikipedia "can perpetuate false information and contribute to the spread of misinformation.", if this was all indisputable truth before Trump rose to power, how did it happen?

The way Wikipedia editors typically answer this conundrum, namely by saying quite literally that half the American population are racist, brainwashed or just straight up insane, is what proves beyond doubt that they truly are blind to the way they intentionally distorted the reality of American society, politics and culture in the run up to that election.

They presented their narrative, not the truth, because they wanted so badly for it to be true, and they genuinely seem to think that Wikipedia has the power to turn opinion into fact.

This is why they will never do anything to fix this problem, since for them, it is not a problem.

If it kills Wikipedia, they'll blame the Jews.
If they blame the jews, they will have irrevocably discredited themselves.

User avatar
Ognistysztorm
Sucks Critic
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:39 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 191 times

Re: Research Article: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

Post by Ognistysztorm » Thu May 25, 2023 4:38 am

The adjacent topic at Wikipediocracy is just locked. May Wikipedia live in interesting times.

SkepticalHistorian
Sucks Fan
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 4:00 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Research Article: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

Post by SkepticalHistorian » Thu May 25, 2023 1:53 pm

Ognistysztorm wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 4:38 am
The adjacent topic at Wikipediocracy is just locked. May Wikipedia live in interesting times.
What a joke and irony that topic is, a Pandora’s box of distortion. “Shut it down!”

I still think that G&K’s intent was to lay guilt trip on Poland to extort more restitution:
n 2021, Poland enacted a law setting a 30-year time limit on appealing administrative decisions made by special administrative bodies, effectively meaning that owners of property seized in the communist era can no longer receive compensation. The law sparked a diplomatic incident with Israel.[36][12][37] Israel's Foreign Minister Yair Lapid described it as “immoral and a disgrace.” Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said “I can only say that as long as I am the prime minister, Poland will not pay for German crimes: Neither zloty, nor euro, nor dollar.”[38] After Poland’s President Andrzej Duda signed the law on 14 August, Israel recalled its envoy from Poland and told the Polish ambassador not to return.[39][40] US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had also spoken out against the law, and urged Poland “to develop a clear, efficient and effective legal procedure to resolve confiscated property claims and provide some measure of justice for victims. In the absence of such a procedure, this legislation will harm all Polish citizens whose property was unjustly taken, including that of Polish Jews who were victims of the Holocaust.”[41]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_ ... troversies

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: Research Article: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

Post by ericbarbour » Thu May 25, 2023 7:19 pm

Ognistysztorm wrote:
Thu May 25, 2023 4:38 am
The adjacent topic at Wikipediocracy is just locked. May Wikipedia live in interesting times.
HA HA HA HA and also :flamingbanana:

FUCK YOU, BILL.

User avatar
Ognistysztorm
Sucks Critic
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:39 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 191 times

Re: Research Article: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

Post by Ognistysztorm » Fri May 26, 2023 12:13 am

Someone should climb up the Golden Gate Bridge to unfurl a big banner that says "Wikipedia distorts Holocaust!"

Post Reply