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.
that’s an interesting way to sum it up, yeah. do you happen to have any collections of articles that discuss mass killings under capitalist states?
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
Also it’s doing unionbusting
Yes. The meme is bullshit. The wikipedia community has always covered every kind of atrocity and has truly tried to maintain a neutral pow. But the union busting really is Really shitty behavior from the wikimedia organization.
and has truly tried to maintain a neutral pow.
My god, how are you people so fucking brainless?
seriously. before we even get to state-sponsored media, i’d say a good half of the people i look up on wikipedia don’t have a “controversy” section when they absolutely should. they have been biased towards protecting the images of people and countries for quite a long time.
Because you hoard the brain in a box! (sorry, couldn’t help myself)
Allowing only western sources is not truly trying to maintaining a neutral pov as all sources have a bias
Does Wikipedia really only allow Western sources? I don’t know if that’s true
wikipedia considers government propaganda sources like the BBC and Voice of America (dont laugh) to be reliable, as long as they’re western government propaganda sources.
But I don’t think it’s true Wiki only allows Western sources
Wikipedia heavily favors western news sources as “less biased” than non-western equivalents. Look at the text of the post you’re commenting in.
maintain a neutral pow
Neutral POV as per themselves? Or is it some external agency? Agency made up of all sides?
And do you see this as neutral?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
You can notice the bias towards the state media from pro-capitalist regimes
Removed by mod
China is a socialist country.
China is led by a Communist party that aims to progress in the path of Socialism.
Compared to the West, not pro-Capitalist enough for Wikipedia then?
Removed by mod
Socialism is not “no private sector,” it’s a transitional society between capitalism and communism marked by worker control of the state, and public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. All apply to China. Regarding prolewiki saying that China isn’t socialist, that is outright incorrect. You also lied about the CPC saying that socialism is not the backbone of their economy and their goal for further development, you linked a source stating that the private sector presently plays a large but subordinate part of the economy, which is in line with their analysis that they are in the primary stage of socialism:
Then you compare ratios of private to public, which doesn’t actually say anything about which sector holds power. The important factor is controlling the commanding heights and critical sectors, and employing marketization in underdeveloped sectors to facilitate growth. Capital is treated in China like a farmer treats wheat, rather than like an uncontrollable force of nature like it is in the US, because China is socialist.
Can I get the reference from Table I? I would like to read it
- The backbone of the economy is state ownership and socialist planning. 24 / 25 of the top revenue companies are state-owned and planned. 70% of the top 500 companies are State-owned. 1, 2 The largest bank, construction, electricity, and energy companies in the world, are CPC controlled entities, subject to the 5 year plans laid out by the central committee.
- Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
- Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?
- Didn’t China go Capitalist with Deng Xiaoping? Didn’t it liberalize its economy? Is China’s drastic decrease in poverty a result of the increase in free market capitalist policies?
- Is the CPC committed to communism?
- The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
- The myth of Chinese state capitalism. Did Deng really betray Chinese socialism?
- Tsinghua University- Is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics real socialism, or is it state Capitalism?
- Isn’t China revisionist for having a capitalist sector of the economy, and working with capitalists? Why isn’t it fully planned like the USSR was?
- Castro on why both China and Vietnam are socialist countries.
- Roderic Day - China has billionaires.
- What is socialism with Chinese characteristics (SWCC)?
- How is SWCC not revisionist? How is it any different from Gorbachev’s market reforms?, 2
- Domenico Losurdo - is China state capitalist?, 2
- Did Lenin say anything about Market Socialism, or productivism?
- Vijay Prashad - Is China capitalist?
- Why do Chinese billionaires keep ending up in prison? Why are many billionaires and CEOs going missing? China sentences Ex-Chairman of a major bank, guilty of embezzling ~$100M USD, to death in 2019.
- China cracks down on billionaires - Ben Norton interviews Ian Goodrum
- Do capitalists control the communist party? No, pic
- How the State runs business in China.
- 50% of the economy is in the socialist public sector and directly follows the plan (40% if you ignore the agricultural sector). 20 to 30% is inside the state capitalist sector, which is the sector partially or totally owned by domestic capitalists but run by the CPC or by local workers councils. The rest is made up of the small bourgeois ownership like in the NEP.
- China pushing forward Marxist training in colleges, attracts 1M students.
- China tells the US that it has no plans to weaken the role of its State-Owned-Enterprises, one of the US’s main demands in the trade war. “Beijing plans to make the state economy stronger, bigger, and better.”
- Unlike the US, China refuses to bail out over-leveraged property developers, and lets them go bankrupt.
- A China misinformation Megathread.
https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/socialism-with-chinese-characteristics
Removed by mod
Vastly better than USAmerica
Is that the reason for Wikipedia’s bias against their media?
Europe tags along with USAmerican regime’s capitalist-imperialist actions and so their media is given an exemption?
Heck, even ProleWiki says that Socialism in China is a dream for the future, and that they are aiming for the poetic 100th birthday of PRC. I will believe that when I see it, because for now it’s just a capitalist country.
Even if they are currently capitalist, they do not see it as the end stage, like the pro-capitalist regimes do?
So, let’s not lie to ourselves, to deny the obvious preference that the Wikipedia page shows for the media from the pro-capitalist regimes.
To be clear, ThirdConsul is lying. China is socialist, and both the CPC and prolewiki agree about that. ThirdConsul is pretending socialism means the absence entirely of private property.
This is the moderating repository of knowledge in the western media ecosystem all but admitting that they do not actually consider China a capitalist state.
Don’t give the Wikipedia community too much credit. The union-busting goes hand-in-hand with the western liberal frame that every article is presented with.
The wikipedia community has always covered every kind of atrocity and has truly tried to maintain a neutral pow.
lol
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.
I think you may have misunderstood point of that image.
It not on the sources being biased(there are no unbiased sources), but noting the easily notable bias in the Wikipedia source selection, the preference for media funded by pro-capitalist regimes.
Do you see an issue in noting how Wikipedia has this bias, and going against the notion by some that it is unbiased or neutral?
Yes, because the “easily-notable bias” is just a result of discussions done at different times to different evidence, and claiming bias is an overgeneralization.
Bias just means that you have a worldview, which everyone has whether they acknowledge it or not simply by living and existing in the real world.
Ok, but I wasn’t the one implying Wikipedia editors as a group are biased.
They are. Everyone has a bias.
Me:
as a group
You:
everyone
Groups usually cancel bias. And the leftover bias is not “easily notable”
Groups do not cancel bias. Wikipedia is overwhelmingly western, which becomes a western bias. Groups reinforce bias.
I genuinely don’t know what you people even think bias is at this point
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.
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
I don’t even know what convention you think you’re part of
You occupy the very specific cross section of Dunning-Kreuger represented by European tech liberals
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.
“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.
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
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
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
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.
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
there’s a mass anti-communist killings page, but that doesnt seem to explain how capitalism is anti-communism…
deleted by creator
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’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.
it will be deleted regardless because a lot of wikipedia editors are cia agents
No! You can’t expect them to behave! They need to use blogs and disrecredited historians for citations!!! FACTS ARE CIA!!!
No! You can’t deny the holy scripture! The tankies are at fault when we lose, for not believing hard enough!!! CIA ARE FACTS!!!
“My sources are ‘facts’ because they say so! Your sources are ‘discredited’ because mine say so!”
A perfectly circular chain of reasoning
Might I recommend King Leopold’s Ghost if you want a straight up history book of the Belgian Congo. No shade against Heart of Darkness, I think that’s a worthwhile read; but reading KLG first will give you more context to appreciate HoD. Or maybe read it after, idk, up to you
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
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/AverroesThey 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
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 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.
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?
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?
What exactly is your issue with Wikipedia?
It’s clear from the content of that article that they are willing to include information on capitalism’s role in atrocities, and cite anticapitalist sources. The “anticommuniat mass killings” article even shows they are willing to do pro-communist listicles. It’s clear to me that the wikipedia article creation and editing process itself does not prevent creating well-sourced pro-communist articles. Are you complaining that the users on wikipedia choose to organize the information in a way that’s more aligned with capitalist viewpoints? If so, yes, of course-- most people in the english-speaking world are capitalists, and will view issues in that light. They simply outnumber you and so it is more likely they will make an article. But there is nothing stopping you from making articles of your own or improving existing articles to include your perspective. If you want Wikipedia to be more accurate and think it’s missing info or organized incorrectly, you are free to edit it yourself. It seems really weird to blame Wikipedia for this when the issue is (1) inherent to being a platform filled with user-generated content and (2) something you are in a good position to solve if you chose to participate.
Are you unable to read?
Comment rating: 1/5
Generic unfunny insult, fails to respond meaningfully
Removed by mod
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?
Removed by mod
Do you actually have a point, then? Why defend ableism? There are billions of ways to insult people that don’t rely on bigotry.
Removed by mod
All of the conversation is surrounding your bigotry.
Ableism from a lib instance. Classic.
Removed by mod
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
👌👍
