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.
Also it’s doing unionbusting
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.
there’s a mass anti-communist killings page, but that doesnt seem to explain how capitalism is anti-communism…
deleted by creator
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
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!!!
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
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.
“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
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
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 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.
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
Try reading my comment above that instead of the one you responded tk.
Are you delusional? You were responding to a top-level comment, there is no comment you made above that…?
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.
groups usually cancel bias
Lmao, so we’re just saying shit now, alright. Famously unbiased:
- The police
- Lynch mobs
- Academic institutions
- Think tanks
- The KKK
- The Clergy
- A group of children
I think you struggle to understand what the word “bias” means. It seems like it just short-circuits in your brain to “bad”. A group typically enforce the bias inherent to it.
It requires actively being aware of ones’ bias to counteract it, which is one of many reasons why Wikipedias presentation as a “neutral” source of knowledge is an issue. Because it makes doofuses like you trust it like gospel and react like fanatics to the heresy that maybe the website founded by a zionist, with a longtime issue with power-users (not to mention the infiltration of Nazis that gets brought up once in a while in a feelgood story about someone taking them on), a rule against
being critical of "approved sourcesinvestegationmaking use of primary sources, an arbitrary approach as to how trustworthy a source is (the main judgement of which seems to be “do they reinforce state dept. talking points?”); well, it might have some issues.
I genuinely don’t know what you people even think bias is at this point
