This page in a nutshell: Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.

Verifiability is as important as truth.

But reliable sources are biased!

From WP:BIASED (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources).

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

(Bolding mine)

But reliable sources are chosen by biased contributors!

OP attached to their comic repost RSP columns.

Deutsche Welle: Reliability was never discussed in an RFC. Anyone complaining here of bias does not acknowledge their possibility (if they are not banned) of making an RFC on it.
Voice of America: Discussed on RSN a few times. The last one is pretty interesting: Here
Xinhua: Discussed here. ITT: It's quite old, but Xinhua is very controversial.
Telesur: Discussed here around seven years ago. Quite conclusive, I would say.

[–] MrShankles@reddthat.com 2 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Idk, I've learned a tremendous amount about things outside my culture... because of wikipedia. Don't let perfection be the enemy of good?

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 1 points 32 seconds ago

Did you? Or did you read a tremendous amount of propaganda and selective truths, thinking you were getting informed?

Virtually all of the information you are reading is written by Western white men who have a very specific agenda. And the sources allowed are Western sources.

[–] 1Malayali@lemmy.ml 10 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Idk, why should this issue be seen as good?

And what is your culture? Is Wikipedia good for it?

[–] MrShankles@reddthat.com 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It's not? Being informed is always positive, and it's always unfortunate that bias exists. I'd rather learn and try to understand my own bias, as opposed to being ignorant and having bias anyway

Do you have a tool that is just as accessible as wiki, but perfectly objective? Or are you throwing the baby out with the bath-water? Knowledge is good for any culture, and bias is a motherfucker to us all. Your critique isn't unwarranted, but it does flirt with anti-intellectualism

[–] 1Malayali@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Being informed of the bias is also positive

No one mentioned anything about throwing the bathwater, but only hinted at the bias.

Are you trying to villainise and portray it as anti-intellectualism?
Are you thinking that the source you use is unbiased and trying to derial convos that hint at how it is not unbiased?

Noting the bias is a good thing and trying to shut down the convoys on that is a bigger mf to all of us.

Your concerns isn't unwarranted, but it does flirt with strawmanning and derailing the convo.

[–] MrShankles@reddthat.com 0 points 5 hours ago

Sounds like we both flirt with some bias, doesn't it?

[–] halvar@lemy.lol 35 points 1 day ago (4 children)

That's probably because most mass killings under capitalist regimes are just generally called "mass killings". They are your regular, run of the mill mass killings that aren't really newsworthy and that we are accustomed to.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Cysioland@lemmygrad.ml 40 points 1 day ago (29 children)

Also it's doing unionbusting

load more comments (29 replies)

load more comments