How propaganda works vs. how Wikilawyers think propaganda works

[Bbb23sucks]

Agreed. I'm having a hard time remembering who is who across different websites: are you active on Justapedia?

No. I created an account though. Maybe I'll edit some time. I have an idea on what I want to write about.

[ericbarbour]

Wow, I did not know most of that. I didn't know his older username, and I didn't know his identity. This is good information, thank you.

You're welcome. Bear in mind that hundreds of these "anonymous" WP "insiders" have been unmasked since Brandt put up his first Wikipedia Watch website in 2005-06. And virtually all of them proved to be like Lee: complete nobodies, terminally online, and having personal axes for grindery. The anti-quack and Guerrilla Skeptics are among the worst power-abusing types. Doxxing them is usually possible because their smear their petty little egos on other websites. Many showed up on WP early on and were told "you can be totally anonymous here, do what you like" and many of them went berserk. They proved to be less than anonymous.

Please bear in mind: Lee did a lot of rotten things but Guy Chapman still makes him look like a piker.

As was self-evident from his political essays on Wikipedia, I can see that he has no relevant expertise that would allow him to speak with authority about politics, which he does regularly. He even wrote me an essay on my talk page once, to "explain" the left/right dichotomy to me.

As usual. These "great Wikipedians" always turn out to be little things with tiny willies. Falsity in advertising.

[Archer]

Lot of good observations in this thread. You've already hit upon one of the big points: Wikipedia encourages information laundering by disfavoring (if not outright prohibiting) primary sources and "original research", for which many regular editors seem to have a very broad definition. The value of the expert editor is wasted if people are simply expected to regurgitate the media's propaganda. Information without broad media exposure will tend to be underrepresented on Wikipedia precisely because of this, regardless of how salient or valuable it is, even if it is part of the public record and indisputable. Common sense itself is frequently rejected.

The topic for discussion is this: how can a future project, like Justapedia, construct its sourcing and verifiability policies to make it more resilient to propaganda by omission than WIkipedia?

Aside from sourcing/verifiability policies, I think Wikipedia tends to discourage constructive discourse. On Wikipedia, "consensus" (of the in-crowd) trumps any well-reasoned argument. Wikipedia rejects expertise and honest disputation. I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen editors and admins not only refuse to acknowledge the central points of an argument, but actively distort them and then accuse the editor of bludgeoning if they persist. Why they do this I can only guess, but any future project would do well not to give people of this sort any position of authority. It should encourage a culture of objectivity and fair discussion/argumentation.

[suckadmin]

Common sense itself is frequently rejected.

Personally I'd avoid using the phrase common sense.. imo it's more akin to speaking ones own truth these days rather than truths that are self evident

[Archer]

Common sense itself is frequently rejected.

Personally I'd avoid using the phrase common sense.. imo it's more akin to speaking ones own truth these days rather than truths that are self evident

Yes, it's a bit trite.

Edit: Well, trite in a literary sense. A critic cannot disown the idea of objective truth.

[Archer]

A few more comments in addition to https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 817#p29817.

One should keep in mind how WIkipedia achieves "consensus" or rather the appearance thereof. Dissenting individuals, if they aren't discouraged by the repellent effect of reverts and dismissive non-arguments, are simply blocked. This is practically stated outright in https://web.archive.org/web/20240827135 ... r_hotheads. There are probably many examples of an article where a number of different users (casual users or IP editors usually) have attempted to make reasonable changes, all in a similar vein, yet are rejected time after time. In aggregate they represent a majority, but in any given dispute it's usually only one up against several 'insiders'.