• Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wikipedia, the neutral website that also somehow happened to protest with a Reddit-style blackout when Donald Trump tried passing those internet bills, has a slant against the leader’s party? Alright, I’ll humor you.

    Also, completely unrelated question about that, how does one square someone having a slant against a political party, being on good terms with the political international that party is in, that party being in said political international, and that party being in a nation that works against anything about itself being publicized?

    • Abracadaniel [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m confused, can you elaborate? The DPRK is North Korea’s name for itself. WPK is its majority party. Are you claiming they’re part of a political international that wikipedia is on good terms with?

          • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not so much Wikipedia is aligned “with” anyone (in a favoritist sense) but that they are on good terms with them. Wikipedia lists a few of the internationals here, note how Communist internationals take up the bulk of internationals, some which share countries. The two most relevant ones are this and this one which star North Korea. Having never heard of a slant towards the WPK before yesterday, how this might be still piques my curiosity given the internationals seem fine, and the only thing that comes to my mind is how North Korea has, let’s just say a digital reputation.

      • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What I was trying to imply was “if anything” is going to suffer their bias, Marxism is on their unlikelihood list.

            • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Dude, it’s Wikipedia… How are you not getting it? I linked you a Wikipedia article about bias on Wikipedia as a joke

              • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So then what’s the basis for the second article? That people editing wikipedia pages are in an edit war over the atrocities of the nazis? That it’s longterm and ordained by wikipedia themselves? Elaborate.

                • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The basis for the second article is that there is thousands of Nazis on Wikipedia, seemingly writing barely-challenged lies. The point of the second article is that Wikipedia has a nazi problem, which leads to it having a right-wing bias.
                  I don’t believe it’s some sinister plot by Wikipedia, but it is a fact that it is an issue wikipedia has. It is the downside to the “everyone is an editor” format which the site makes use of

                  • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The two things just seem to undermine each other, but that aside, I hope the other sources will do, whatever your criteria is for a good source.