←back to thread

598 points leotravis10 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
Andrex ◴[] No.45131956[source]
Not the OP but I'll back him up, and I'll edit this comment when I come across them. They're pretty common. If the domain of knowledge is niche and the page is absolutely huge, that's a good sign to start looking for editoralizations and slants.

A lot of wiki pages about smaller companies only list the good things (fundraising, tech, etc.) and omit any controversies. The deliberate omissions due to bias are even more insidious than weasel words or other forms of poor journalism.

Fwiw I truly believe in Wikipedia and donate every year, but calling it "perfect" would be extremely dangerous (and false!)

replies(4): >>45132563 #>>45136210 #>>45137773 #>>45154920 #
1. straydusk ◴[] No.45154920{3}[source]
Share an example then