I mean they’re right that there’s a bias towards Western sources and beliefs, but that’s because most of the volunteers are middle class westerners steeped in that worldview. The rest is just malding
Larry Sanger has attempted to recreate wikipedia thrice unsuccessfully because he’s mad that it doesn’t conform to evangelical christianity and doesn’t accept pseudoscience health claims. He should be laughed at, to his face, whenever he opens his mouth.
What’s funny is there are legitmate grievances agaisnt whiteypedia.
Can’t edit without referencing 3000 bullshit rules (uhm actually you didn’t cite every line, ignore my edit adding 40 paragraphs with one citation). Can’t edit without having been an editor for 5 years. Some guy wants this page to break the rules and none of the admins care but will care if you touch it.
Rules against primary sources (what a fucking joke). Except they cite primary sources all the fucking time, its only used to remove stuff they don’t like. Seen well documented allegations against some ghoul removed because they aren’t “relevant” to their career.
Scientific studies removed because “they’re controversial” (IE: I’m paid by the company making this artificial sweetener and can’t let you slander our product), except they’ll cite Wakefield’s child killing studies just fine. Extreme European-American bias. Etc etc.
Nearly got banned for editing once:
cw Native American genocide denial
The intro to this article is a crime against humanity. Previous versions literally used the word “alleged”. Now its completely passive “some people thing”. The writers of this paragraph need to be jailed for the rest of eternity in the deepest pit.
I made some edits once and got immediately reverted. Threatened me that if I kept making “uncited” edits they’d ban my IP. Said some mean stuff and kinda shocked they didn’t ban me but lol. You don’t need a citation to remove a plain lie. (Yes I know this is “unacademic” thought, but if you need a citation for the sky being blue…)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_genocide_in_the_United_States
Much less serious: They were moaning about implementing dark mode for YEARS. Suddenly someone added it and it just works. Now they STILL default to eye kill mode. Death to the admins for flashbanging me if I open a site in incognito.
Compare your sample to this one:
They only use the “academic” language when it suits them and are more than happy to use weasel words as much as possible, no “some” consider this a genocide, it is “often” considered a genocide instead, by everyone, not just “some.” You disagree with the Correct Opinion if you challenge this idea. But it’s ok because they also say it is also “persecution” which is a wildly different term than straight up genocide. Wikipedia is a cesspool of smug white guy opinions about how the rest of the world is worse, and that’s when an article isn’t directly controlled by the feds in the US.
I’m sorry–you want an encyclopedia to make a hard line stance on religion and not just portray its tenants, practice, history, and controversies? That is an astonishingly stupid take.
Nazi-sympathising worldview, which is totally at odds with conservative reality and rationality
No it’s not lol
It’s really important for us to educate people on form vs content. They mean something like “we are totally against the government intervening in basic rights as long as someone isn’t destroying our basic rights” and the content of most of the nouns in that sentence are different between Nazis and conservatives. The form is almost identical though, and the material effect through that form is identical
bit idea: wreck conservatives by bemoaning purity testing.
Their Bible translation project is something else…
unwoke-ing the Bible has to be in the top 5 biggest heresies committed by the American Evangelical movement, which says a lot
Did this guy use AI to generate an image mostly made up of text
Academic
Parrots the mainstream view
Do they want it to parrot fringe conspiracy theories instead
yes
And what’s even dumber is that HE’S the fucking mainstream opinion!
academic
not particularly lol
Yeah, but it’s absolutely academic compared to anything the people who complain about GASP are used to. They cite most of their information, for fuck’s sake.
He has reasonable critiques about how Wikipedia has a colonialist perspective, but his solutions do nothing to solve that issue, and instead seem to mostly exist so he can include conservative-biased articles in Wikipedia, instead of having to go to conservapedia. Changing rules or making it so you can make multiple articles per topic won’t stop the majority of editors being white, western, and well off. That’s just a function of who has the most and best internet access. His changes show what he really wants is white, western, and well off under-educated conservatives, rather than white, western, and well off well-educated liberals.
who has the most and best internet access
This is definitely true, but I want to highlight that language is a contributor that shouldn’t be ignored. The articles even in different Wikipedia languages treat the same subject differently sometimes, and I’m not just talking about Arabic Wikipedia’s Palestine logo or the court order to remove information from English and Portuguese Wikipedia on Caesar DePaço.
the Truthologist has logged on.
Spoiler
he got a booger on his pfp
“You’re BIASED against BIASED people!”
That’s how it works, dipshit. The truth fucking hurts. Facts don’t end where the lowest common denominator’s comfort begins. Truth is not a democracy.
It is absolutely false that there’s a flat tendency toward the academic view. Some articles focus on academic views, as they should, but many are very pop history, and most people here would recognize this from them either promoting ahistorical views as the primary interpretation (treating the Holodomor as a genocide, with a page on Holodomor “denialism” to boot) or treating absurd anticommunist accusations as at least credible (like the idea that the Katyn Massacre was meant to destroy the Polish intelligentsia because the officers were, as military officers, disproportionately upper class). Basically, it’s academic except when it has an ax to grind, and it has a severe ax to grind with anything even faintly nominally communist, with it being nearly miraculous if they include a serious communist perspective as even a footnote while they are happy to represent the most academically fringe anticommunist views with credulity.
I hate it when people act like religion should be taken more seriously as true. Just show it then? That’s what I always do. Just provide evidence that your belief is objectively correct and I’m sure every encyclopedia will start treating it that way.
I’m not hating on Wikipedia here but you dig down through the chain of epistemology on Wikipedia for anything non-STEM and you get into some interesting sources very quickly.
It’s why epistemology is important
“You are biased against me because you don’t accept my ‘ancient’ belief system as implicitly true and defer to me on all matter on which I have an opinion. Also every other belief system is implicitly false and must be suppressed, and if you don’t let me do this you’re oppressing me!” - someone who exclusively believes deeply heretical and self-serving 20th century reinterpretations of 19th century heretical reinterpretations of medieval heresies based on known scriptural fraud in the late classical period which was trying to claim association with an earlier classical heresy which was overturning earlier heretical deviations (which are the most like the 20th century heresies of any of this) that came from a long history of genocidal heresies where one sect of a broader polytheistic religion invented a henotheistic heresy and exterminated all the other sects back in the bronze age.
Like the whole thing is so absurd in an absolutely terrifying way. I mean I can kind of understand why people get that way: I was raised with an incoherent new age animist religious framework and even if I don’t believe any of it, I still find myself understanding and feeling sympathetic towards animist beliefs and perspectives, while monotheistic beliefs and perspectives have always been something alien, external, and actively hostile. That stuff sticks with you even if you don’t cleave to it yourself. And of course when you weren’t raised with a given framework, that framework will almost always come across as implicitly false: they see the whole concept of spirits of places and things as being alien and implicitly false in the same way I see their domineering and cruel cult of an all-encompassing divine host as being alien and implicitly false.
I do have to say that I find some considerable irony in the fact that I, an atheist who was raised with pagan beliefs, generally know the theology and history of Christianity better than your typical Christian. Being able to look at it from the outside makes it like any other mythology, for all that the understanding that this mythology in particular is actively believed in by cruel and hostile powers that actively and openly both want me subjugated or dead and have actively tormented me my entire life makes it rather more unpleasant to learn about.
haven’t these rubes heard of conservapedia or whatever it’s called
I miss when people actually did the effort to learn or at least try to use vectors. Every time I see a flyer or banner made with AI I think that we’ve forsaken our ancestors abilities on Inkscape and Corel.
learn or at least try to use vectors
Bit idea: PhD in vector calculus who makes flyers and banners with AI
Had me in the first half, NGL. But really they’re just saying “Woke” 4 different ways.
that’s why I only use Encarta 97 Deluxe. the second CD is a little cummy but i still make it work
