https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
You can notice a bias towards the state media from pro-capitalist regimes from the above.
You know you can make a page yourself right?
Go ahead and compile a list with sources referenced and write it up according to the style guide.
I don’t think OP is concerned about the existence of one particular article, but rather the various systemic biases in what Wikipedia chooses to include or exclude.
People have done this repeatedly and been nuked every time. It’s extremely fucking telling that all the Wikipedia true believers have clearly never actually looked into the process themselves
That would be because you’re supposed to contribute articles to the repository before you’re allowed to just go scribbling on the walls. Authorarian and draconian, I know. A system likely devised by the CIA to oppress white people who never go outside
Yeah there’s always some post hoc justification for it
Life’s hard when I have to have the bare minimum of rigor before vandalizing public works
vandalizing public works
Lol. Calm down. Creating a Wikipedia page is not “vandalizing public works”
You’re right. It’s the requirement be granted editing privileges. Try to keep up. Or go read the rules before you whine. Or just stop playing dumb
You occupy the very specific cross section of Dunning-Kreuger represented by European tech liberals
I don’t even know what convention you think you’re part of
“You know you can do this thing yourself right?”
Person does thing
“No you are using biased language and have to use exclusively sources which are known to repeat CIA imperialist propaganda like the Hamas rape hoax on demand.”
Yeah articles that show capitalist and imperialists in a bad light don’t exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising
The sources referenced there should be a great start for writing the suggested article. Have at it.
which ones explicitly state that they were caused by capitalism like the point OP was making?
The suggestion was that OP could simply make an article and reference works that make a strong case for that claim.
It doesn’t appear to be difficult especially in relation to colonialism.
Now if Wikipedia rejected a well researched, fairly written and referenced article, this would be a different discussion.
the claim is that wikipedia is biased against communism and dedicates a 1/4 of its existence to clearly displaying it:
none of yours do
Now if Wikipedia rejected a well researched, fairly written and referenced article, this would be a different discussion.
No it wouldn’t, it would be exactly the same because you would ignore that Wikipedia deleted it. And we know this because that is exactly what happened
True. Would be good to try that and see how it is handled
Asking for the help of others who may see this: Could you help in listing major mass killings by capitalist states?
Will mention ones that I can remember now:
USAmerican regime - Kent State Uni massacre, MOVE bombing, BLM protestors murdered for protesting against the racist regime
British colonial regime in India - Jalianwallah Bagh massacre, Wagon massacre, Massacre of tribes in hilly states
If famines are included, then the Bengal famine, Madras famine, Travancore famine etc.Mass killings in areas like Ireland n all by the British capitalist regime too
South Korean regime - Jeju island, Bodo league massacres and similar mass killings
Mass killings by Nazi Germany
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.
Yeah dude just regular mass killings that happen every day
My previous comment was very cynical, but when you think about it communism is the historical anomaly. Sure you can point to the Mass killings wikipedia page, but you can also do that with other topics and they also are separated into “XY under communism” and “XY” articles. XY could be stuff like “Economy”, “Urban development”, “Housing” or “Worker’s rights”. It’s just a convention wikipedia seems to adhere to.
In what way is communism a historical anomaly in a manner that capitalism does not fit into? Both are part of the same historical development process.
It’s an anomaly in the sense that it was present in high gear for around 70 years in the 20th century and most people (who are likely to read wikipedia) probably don’t live in it right now. That’s my one and only reason for calling it that.
I suppose I can see that logic, but capitalism too is a historical anomaly, and will too become a part of history while socialism and eventually communism becomes dominant. Framing it this way is a viewpoint that sees capitalism more as static and unchanging than anything else.
I’m on your side
Yeah, I just wanted to clarify.
Roger that; just making sure o7
Fascist and colonial states atrocities are widely documented in Wikipedia, countries that we consider capitalist probably too. I recently stumbled across Belgian atrocities in Congo reading Wikipedia by accident. It motivated me to read more about it in the future, maybe “Heart of darkness” (while not exactly historical, it still seems like a good critique. By the way is it a good novel?).
True.
But there does not seem to be an equivalent page for ‘Mass killings in capitalist regimes’
Even if it is documented, does it not show that how it is organised currently has an imbalance, likely from Anti-communist propaganda, things like red scare etc?
So, cannoted be unbiased, right? My focus was on that. There is no unbiased source, but only ones which acknowledge biases and maybe try to ensure that the biases do not affect the quality of the source too much.
But there does not seem to be an equivalent page for ‘Mass killings in capitalist regimes’
You can create that page. Don’t forget to cite your sources and link to them or it will be deleted.
it will be deleted regardless because a lot of wikipedia editors are cia agents
It’s so fucking stupid that you don’t think anyone has tried this. And so fucking arrogant that you don’t even bother you check before mouthing off.
No! You can’t expect them to behave! They need to use blogs and disrecredited historians for citations!!! FACTS ARE CIA!!!
“My sources are ‘facts’ because they say so! Your sources are ‘discredited’ because mine say so!”
A perfectly circular chain of reasoning
No! You can’t deny the holy scripture! The tankies are at fault when we lose, for not believing hard enough!!! CIA ARE FACTS!!!
I’m genuinely unsure if it’s because of propaganda or capitalist defaultism instilled in contributors due to its worldwide prevalence. Then again I suppose one could argue that defaultism was instilled by propaganda, but I’d like it more to US defaultism where it mostly stems from a large amount of online interaction in English speaking spaces being between people in the US
That is just killings against communists. That is not equal to killings under capitalist states.
Injustices such as the Ludlow would not fall under the former as the victims were not communists. They were workers seeking better wages and conditions under a capitalist system.
There is no “anti-capitalist mass killings” page either.
You might want to give some sources for that heading.
Idk, I’ve learned a tremendous amount about things outside my culture… because of wikipedia. Don’t let perfection be the enemy of good?
Edit: I apologize that my comment derailed from the conversation of Wikipedia having inherent and abundant Western bias… the fact that VOA is considered reputable is enough to turn heads. What I guess I was trying to say is that I wouldn’t want people to ignore a good resource for information because of that… but it is also very important to point out and criticize their bias, if true neutrality is a Wikipedia “goal”
I apologize again. I would delete my comments, but I think it’s important to own up to my own errors and have a record of what was said. Maybe others will learn from my misinterpretation of the conversation being presented, and my initial emotional responses
Idk, why should this issue be seen as good?
And what is your culture? Is Wikipedia good for it?
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
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.
Sounds like we both flirt with some bias, doesn’t it?
What point did you think you were making here?
“Being informed is positive” is not what is being argued against, and you know it. This is disingenuous and poor rhetorics.
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?
More poor rhetorics. If youre not interested in actual discussion, why engage with someone acting in clear, good faith? Its pretty clear that the argument is that the issue with Wikipedia is that it presents itself as unbiased, while in fact being heavily biased. The issue is not the presence of bias itself.
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.
Nobody escapes propaganda. Learning and trying to understand your own bias is the best you can do. Unless you have a source for perfect objective truth that you’d like to share?
You can escape propaganda by getting informed by multiple perspectives.
Not by reading a single source which claims to represent multiple perspectives but actually completely reframes reality to sell you a single perspective.
Wikipedia is great for any exact sciences. History and politics related information is extremely selective and has a Western agenda attached.
Look at this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes They put his Latin name as the title and his picture is a painting in an Italian church. Now read who he was. Does the framing match?
I agree, multiple perspectives is absolutely key and using any one source for history or politics will be problematic. Wikipedia is absolutely bias with Western ideology, but it’s not exactly a propaganda machine. I always use it like you’re taught in school, that Wikipedia is not a source. Depending on how deeply you would like to learn about a subject, it’s a great start to finding sources. Unfortunately biased with Western bullshit, absolutely, as is everything coming out the west
I guess I am derailing the conversation if we’re just talking about and calling out Wiki’s Western bias. I would also hate for people to think it’s automatically not informative because of it’s bias… cause everything has one. Multiple sources and viewpoints, like you said, is the way to go
Indonesia: Am I a joke to you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965–66
Where’s the word Capitalism in that title?
I’ll take the ban on this account.
Are you retarded?
Is there a reason for deliberately breaking the rules by being ableist? Could you not have phrased your discontent with the meme in a way that doesn’t break the rules?
No. They needed to hear how dumb this was.
Do you actually have a point, then? Why defend ableism? There are billions of ways to insult people that don’t rely on bigotry.
Look at how effective it was. It’s been 5 minutes and it’s already controversial and active. That’s the lost point of cussing.
All of the conversation is surrounding your bigotry.
Ableism from a lib instance. Classic.
It’s amazing that you think what instance someone comes from means jack shit. Like a fundamental lack of thought process . When this account gets banned I’ll make sure to hop on my .ml accounts to troll you from beyond the grave 😂
It’s always the same instances that post the most vile lib and fascist comments.
Also Imagine thinking someone is beyond critique because they are from the same instance
Post hog
👌👍
