Another example of Wikipedia being a progressive propaganda site

I just stumbled across this article :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Italy

Here we learn that "Racism like bigotry is encountered in most societies" (a perfectly verifiable and non-ideological fact, truly quality encyclopedic work here) and they mention "hostility to clandestini (illegal immigrants)" as an example of racism.

The way such blatant propaganda finds its way on Wikipedia is by their policy of "secondary sources" versus "primary sources", secondary sources being for them the only ones considered reliable. For example if a politician says "Nazism is evil" (primary source) but CNN says "that guy is a Nazi" (secondary source), then that guy will be officially labeled as a Nazi by Wikipedia in accordance with their policy. As a result, Wikipedia, which is run by male feminists (I know that personally, I used to be an editor there) just parrots the MSM.

Let us remember that the Wikimedia foundation is explicitly a liberal organization, by officially opposing Donal Trump's policies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/News_and_notes

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is a propaganda site.

Do you have more anecdotes on Proggiepedia? Share them here.

 

and conservatives abandoned net neutrality.

 

Completely off topic. This thread is about Wikipedia and has absolutely nothing to do with how ISP's allocate their bandwidth.

 

No Net neutrality is not solely about bandwidth allocation, it also governed fair access to information available...

What Is Net Neutrality?

The first question is the easiest, in that we can answer it with a single sentence, straight from the dictionary. Net neutrality means that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.
https://www.cloudwards.net/net-neutrality/

”Why would the telecoms want to interfere with internet data?
Profit and other corporate interests, or a dislike for certain political viewpoints, or those that it deems “controversial.” Companies might want to interfere with speech that makes them look bad, block applications that compete with their own, degrade or block access to union sites during a labor conflict, or increase their profit by forcing developers to pay more to avoid having their data blocked or slowed down.”
https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/internet-speech/what-net-neutrality

 

If you want a real belly laugh stop by conservative wikipedia.

 

Conservapedia? Oh yeah, these bunch of young earth creationist loons are an embarrassment to conservatism.

The big difference though is that Conservapedia clearly presents itself an an ideological site. While Wikipedia falsely presents itself as a neutral encyclopedia when it is actually an ideological site.

 

Completely on topic: conservatives abandoning net neutrality.

If you want fairness doctrine, AltLightPride, you are walking on a wrong-way street.

 

The bias on wiki, and the way LW distort wiki's many head-scratching "rules" to their advantage is becoming more and more well-known. It's a shame too.

For example, pull up some various political groups, politicians, media outlets etc. Count those labeled "far right" versus "far left." Note that nonleft entries are very often labeled in an exaggerated way in relation to their well-documented stated beliefs and self-identification claims, while supreme effort is often made to conceal the existence of even the mildest ideological slant in LW entities. Then go on the talk pages and notice all the fallacy-loaded "wars of attrition" going on where any attempts to remove bias are projected and piled on... as NPOV ironically.

The gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex maintains a hegemony in general and entertainment media, and several of its branches are full of people who have time the private sector doesn't have to slant wiki and other new media from the comfort and ease of their gov, gov contractor, edu and grantee jobs. Not only do the rest of us pay the outsized salaries and benefits of these people, we pay for their propaganda and attacks on us, attacks on the United States itself, and attacks on human knowledge. Complaining about this, again ironically, is likely to get you labeled a Russian bot, troll, or one of the other "legacy labels" the LW uses to dehumanize those who disagree with them.

And no, it has nothing at all to do with "net neutrality," a different, purposefully mislabeled can of worms.

 

Liberals own all MSM except Fox News and all Social Media.

 

If a very large number of people think you are wrong you just might be wrong

Trump is bloody unpopular everywhere but with a minor faction in America. Wiki is international

You do the math

 

Hey, an ad populum fallacy with no argument!

 

Wikipedia is an open source org. If you dispute the posts..they are evaluated as to accuracy.

The only way you can claim they are wrong is if the bulk of society is wrong.

FAIL

 

I already addressed this point by explaining that their bias comes from the distinction they make between primary sources (what people say directly, books they write etc) which they reject, and secondary sources (the media) which is the only thing they accept.

Liberals control the media. So Wikipedia is just a carbon copy of the biased opinions expressed in the media.

So no, only the media is wrong, not "the bulk of society". And their source policy is very wrong too.

 

Good to hear that you support propaganda presented as fact.

It helps me to understand your posts.

 

Reported, and quoted verbatim for reference in case of edits. I've just had enough with this type of behavior.

 

Prove it.

 

JakeStarkey said: Completely on topic: conservatives abandoning net neutrality.

If you want fairness doctrine, AltLightPride, you are walking on a wrong-way street.

It was the GOP that abandoned net neutrality so they could lie and propagandize.

That you for admitting that.

 

That is your welcome from that poster.

 

Someone never read "The Emperor's New Clothes."

~45% of the U.S. public believe in ghosts, not religious ghosts, just good ole boogety ghosts. ~15% think chocolate milk comes from brown cows.

There are plenty of excellent wiki entries, but topics with even a tinge of political content are generally suspect and unreliable.

 

Wait. A Trump supporter references The Emperor's New Clothes? Are you serious?

 

"That you for admitting that."

It does look like I misunderstood your post. But please don't get childish about it.

 

Childish in pointing out that many on the right "misunderstand" my posts.

 

That one made me giggle too!

 

Re:

Whatever influence the "Proggies" may have on Wikipedia is at least rivaled by Israel's US Funded Propaganda Industry (aka Hasbara) whose paid, trained & scripted shills are taught how to quietly & secretly edit Wikipedia without detection.

So, in addition to the likelihood that Wikipedia will communicate a Progressive slant, you can also expect it to reflect a pro Israel - pro Jewish slant due to the machinations of Hasbara Trolls worldwide.


(1) "Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups

EXCERPT "Now two Israeli groups seeking to gain the upper hand in the online debate have launched a course in "Zionist editing" for Wikipedia, the online reference site.

Yesha Council, representing the Jewish settler movement, and the rightwing Israel Sheli (My I srael) movement, ran their first workshop this week in Jerusalem, teaching participants how to rewrite and revise some of the most hotly disputed pages of the online reference site."CONTINUED


(2) "Wikipedia Editing Courses Launched by Zionist Propaganda Machine"

 

You showed no proof of your allegations of wiki’s use of the term Nazi.