←back to thread

598 points leotravis10 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.7s | source
Show context
glitchc ◴[] No.45131455[source]
Wikipedia has plenty of propaganda. It's often at the fringes of knowledge, in niche subjects where there isn't yet an established group of proponents and detractors. It can be quite subtle too, will fool most laypeople, even those who are otherwise intellectually savvy.

It's only when a subject becomes popular that the propaganda gets recognized and rectified.

replies(1): >>45131735 #
voxl ◴[] No.45131735[source]
And? Share an example. This reads like conspiratorial thinking without any evidence.
replies(10): >>45131956 #>>45132128 #>>45132585 #>>45132685 #>>45133883 #>>45134710 #>>45135434 #>>45135557 #>>45137461 #>>45137826 #
blululu ◴[] No.45132128[source]
This is kind of an unreasonable request. The OP is making claim of a general trend not obscure and subtle bias on any single article. Informally the claim feels true from my experience with Wikipedia and it makes sense that a small number of editors would have a wider bias. Just think central limit theorem here.
replies(1): >>45133171 #
1. voxl ◴[] No.45133171[source]
It's not an unreasonable request to ask for one example of a trend. It's unreasonable to make a claim with no evidence.
replies(1): >>45135057 #
2. ◴[] No.45135057[source]