54 points

They have Radio Free Asia as a greenlisted reliable source here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

So anything on Radio Free Asia is considered verified by Wikipedia’s standards.

Radio Free Asia is openly a branch of the USA’s government. It was created by Bill Clinton’s government.

Ctrl+F Radio Free Asia on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China gives 32 results

permalink
report
reply
26 points

But not any decent non Western or left publication.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

I scanned and Jacobin, al-Jazeera, The New Republic are the best there.

Voice of America is also greenlisted.

Wikileaks is verboten even though Wikileaks has never been known to publish a single fake document.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

I remember that al-Jazeera recently wasn’t allowed for Israel, but I’m too lazy to look it up now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Lol its edit protected. So much for “Anyone can edit”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points
34 points

Every time Amerika commits evil, it’s “allegations”:

That’s pretty funny; I never noticed that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

The destruction of Native American peoples, cultures, and languages has been characterized as genocide. Debates are ongoing as to whether the entire process and which specific periods or events meet the definitions of genocide or not.

Victims: 98% loss of ancestral homelands

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Jesus the Native American one is incredibly evil.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points
*

I know we have a tendency to notice specifically the aspects of Wikipedia that consolidate the worldview of the State Department, but it seems there’s also some very active Catholic editing to discredit any critique of any popes. I fell into a wild Wikipedia rabbit hole last year on this topic, and the more “Talk” pages I read and edits I followed I now think there’s some Vatican deep state that has a small but dedicated Wikipedia army lol.

Anyways my favourite of the thing you’re looking for is that the most closely guarded claim I’ve seen on Wikipedia is on the Working Time page: "Standard working hours of countries worldwide are around 40 to 44 hours per week (but not everywhere: from 35 hours per week in France[4] to up to 105 hours per week in North Korean labor camps)]. Source? A defector who left Korea 30 years ago who said “Those accommodated are mobilized for forced labor from 5:00am to 7:00pm in winter, and till 8:00pm in summer.”

permalink
report
reply
20 points

There’s a whole atheist ‘le sceptic’ agenda to edit it too that I got in trouble once for talking about.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Ya I got a lot of push back when I mentioned that a lot if the skeptic pages are sourced with blogs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

There’s even a book-length treatment of Psi Wars: TED, Wikipedia and the Battle for the Internet

The sort of dogmatic idiots who write RationalWiki are blatant in brigading wikipedia for their agenda.

Even their own side criticised their tactics: https://medium.com/@kattours/guerrilla-skeptics-on-wikipedia-gsow-was-founded-in-2010-by-susan-gerbic-who-was-also-a-founder-74226822a59

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Saints, too. The Padre Pio page is hilariously written in two voices, one that believes all supernatural phenomena, and one that keeps repeating that he bought carbolic acid one town over so as to fake his stigmata.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Haha wow that’s interesting

permalink
report
parent
reply

They don’t fuck, so they got nothing else to do 🤷🏻‍♂️

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation

Vs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China

(It used to be worse, because the latter article used to be called “Uyghur genocide”)

permalink
report
reply
29 points

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

Found myself here a while back. Was having fun reading up ancient aliens and stuff and then saw they listed Historical Materialism. Their reason? Some conservative philosopher said “nu uh”

permalink
report
reply
11 points

Wikipedia has Reddit brain. Any article about any subject is viewed equal. Except when the article is a primary or secondary source (those are too biased) or if they’re on the No-no list, or if they’re not on the Good list. I’ve seen “sources” that were 20 years behind the current science/level of discussion be used. Absolute joke of a “resource”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

My brother in christ this “pseudoscience” has predicted more things historically than any of your neoliberal financial nonsence you try to pass off as irrefutable facts and nature itself.

In fact nature itself IS materialism, it is literally a continuation of darwinistic thinking about evolution which has perfectly explained how we and everything around us came to be.

permalink
report
parent
reply

askchapo

!askchapo@hexbear.net

Create post

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer thought-provoking questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you’re having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

Community stats

  • 125

    Monthly active users

  • 7.3K

    Posts

  • 164K

    Comments