/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
|
Propaganda |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345 8> |
| Author | ||
David_D 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: October 26 2010 Location: Copenhagen Status: Offline Points: 15792 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: October 27 2023 at 12:08 |
|
Which not exactly bothers me.
 |
||
|
quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond
|
||
 |
||
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Online Points: 65818 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 27 2023 at 11:42 |
|
|
I watched the video you posted, Mike. Wikipedia is biased. Sometime it's biased toward the Left. Sometimes not. So the f*ck what. Don't use it. Go out and find a vintage set of encyclopedias. Grow up. John Stossel admitted himself that he used to get political info from Wikipedia and now won't--- that's called freedom of choice. He also happens to be a disturbed Right Wing loser who sees his sociopathic world crumbling around him and wants you to buy into his agenda. |
||
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
||
|
||
|
David_D
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 26 2010 Location: Copenhagen Status: Offline Points: 15792 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 27 2023 at 11:39 |
|
And that is my opinion too as a retired historian and having quite a lot of experience with using Wikipedia. |
||
|
quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond
|
||
|
||
|
progaardvark
Special Collaborator
Crossover/Symphonic/RPI Teams Joined: June 14 2007 Location: Sea of Peas Status: Offline Points: 53627 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 27 2023 at 11:09 |
|
I don't agree with Stossel. He's cherry-picking and taking things out of context. When he shows the sources Wikipedia considers reliable he is leaving out the summary notes which give more detail on what can and cannot be used from these sources. There are conservative sources on the page that are considered reliable (like The Hill and WSJ for example). He makes it sound like there are none. He also isn't interviewing a wider range of editors to get a wider range of viewpoints. He is only picking people that agree with his bias. And I take issue with the "who made the video" comment. When watching a video or reading an article it is always good practice to research the presenter or author for not only their credentials (i.e., are they an expert on what they are talking or writing about?), but a history of biases. Stossel has an obvious ideological bias. It shows in his work and in this video. If he was reporting fairly, this video would address the criticisms I raised above and wouldn't be cherry picking in this manner. This was such a shoddy piece of journalism (I hesitate to even use this word) that I would not consider Stossel as a reliable source on anything. |
||
|
----------
i'm shopping for a new oil-cured sinus bag that's a happy bag of lettuce this car smells like cartilage nothing beats a good video about fractions |
||
|
||
|
suitkees
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 19 2020 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 9050 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 27 2023 at 10:59 |
|
Yes, rightly so. First of all, why would you rely on this kind of opinion videos to illustrate your own opinions? In my view they rather discredit your own - valid and otherwise interesting - statements. Second, I agree that Wikipedia is not free from bias or factual errors. I think it is inherent to its model: it is not peer reviewed by experts as a "normal" encyclopedia (which does not imply that this would be bias free...), but by an unidentified legion of contributors. In its beginnings this was the main critique: it could not be reliable because of that. I think it has proven a certain reliability over time but there are indeed more bias sensitive topics, vulnerable to propagandist tendencies. In my own domain - film and media - I've regularly noticed factual errors on Wiki, generally rather innocent, but I do advise my students, when using Wikipedia, to double check their information. This does not mean that it is by definition wrong or propaganda, but it means it should be used with some caution. Just like all media/internet sources. Third, yes, St**sel is clearly biased (right leaning) in this video, but that is as such OK as long as one differentiates facts from opinion. Which he doesn't. I'm not going into his valuation of the New York Post "revealed" Hunter Biden laptop affair, which has been overtaken and undermined by actuality (the video was posted more than a year ago). It is more his stance on other media that makes him "dubious" when he states: "Wikipedia labels many dubious left-leaning sites "reliable" but rejects conservative sites that are just as good or better." Well, here he clearly confuses bias with reliability. Mother Jones e.g. is a clearly leftist media outlet, but their investigative journalism is well checked and verified and thus reliable. Most of those "leftish" outlets score better in reliability than the right-wing outlets he has chosen to mention according to Ad Fontes' Media Bias Chart. This all to say that is not only bias that is important, but also how information is presented and on what base, if it is verifiable (or falsifiable) and if the source is reliable. It becomes propaganda when relevant facts are omitted, when opinions are presented as facts, when one tries to present lies as truth... And when one uses the word "truth", it should ring alarm bells! Political bias alone is not enough to turn something into propaganda, I think. It is thus very important to be able to distinguish factual statements from value statements (opinions) and to verify information (which is often also depending on one's 'general knowledge, education and culture' - all not free from bias either). It is also important to know and check who is talking and from where (stand points, ideology, financial interests...). Cindy - quite rightly - pointed to the stakeholders of news outlets. Though she illustrated this with a minority stakeholder in several of them, thus not necessarily a decisive "power", it is good to be aware of it. It is of particular importance to know if those stakeholders also have editorial influence. This is the case with Fox News for example, but others have protected themselves from this kind influence (e.g. Le Monde - and Ithink it is the case with many other European news outlets - has assured through its statutes an editorial independence from their stakeholders - for as long as it takes, of course).Edited by suitkees - October 27 2023 at 11:22 |
||
|
The razamataz is a pain in the bum |
||
|
||
|
I prophesy disaster
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 31 2017 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 4999 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 27 2023 at 10:13 |
|
Why do you think Wikipedia is unreliable on the topic of COVID-19? I read about COVID-19 in Wikipedia. Because I have a scientific background, I very much took an interest in the technical details of the coronavirus as well as the vaccines developed for the coronavirus. I saw no reason to question the veracity of the information presented in the articles. I accept that the scientific researchers who are working on the virus are in a better position to know the truth about the virus and any treatments than anybody else. Edited by I prophesy disaster - October 27 2023 at 10:18 |
||
|
No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.
|
||
|
||
|
omphaloskepsis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2011 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 6897 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 27 2023 at 09:50 |
|
Who doesn't spout propaganda isn't the important question. Some of the important questions are- "What propaganda is spewing from the Super Rich Powerful controlling the mainstream media? "What propaganda is aimed at inflaming tensions between non-super-rich groups? Divide and conquer...keeping NON-super-rich groups at each other's throats, so the super-rich can control them. Example: The super-rich promote ethnic tensions, but they NEVER encourage different ethnic poor and middle-class groups to turn against the super-rich. FOX seems like the antithesis of CNBC. However, both FOX and CNBC are Pro-WAR. The Republicans and Democrats form a bipartisan coalition, voting to fund wars in perpetuity. When it comes to leftist and conservative powerful politicians...they are an uni-party. What amazes me? How propaganda causes the regular folks to turn against their own self-interests. The regular folks cheer super-rich schemes that rob the regular folks blind. If more regular people had critical thinking skills they could connect the dots... |
||
|
||
|
Lewian
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: August 09 2015 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 15494 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 27 2023 at 09:22 |
|
|
My take on this is that it is pointless to hope for objectivity where political interests are involved. Trusting Wikipedia blindly is not a good idea, but there is no other source in a privileged position either. If Wikipedia does "propaganda", who doesn't?
|
||
|
||
|
David_D
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 26 2010 Location: Copenhagen Status: Offline Points: 15792 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 27 2023 at 03:49 |
|
 |
||
|
quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond
|
||
|
||
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Joined: April 29 2004 Location: Heart of Europe Status: Online Points: 20610 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 27 2023 at 03:34 |
|
Agreed on this (especially since I am working in a scientific research institute)  When first starting out PA, Wiki was still relatively unreliable, because in its infancy; but 20years down the line with all its corrections, it's become reliable. Even if I totally agree that Wiki is definitely not enough for a thesis: I wouldn't even cite it as a reference, for fear of losing credibility points. I remember some members trying to introduce a PA membership page on Wiki in 2006  , and it got refused within a few hours, which proved that plenty of serious collabs (even back then) carefully overseeing its reliability.==================== But as far as reliability of other encyclopedias - beit Britannica or Larousse (for french) - it's very relative, because of the bias taken for writing the articles and thinking of whim will use them. The Occidental PoV will probably be minoritized as globalization keeps going. History books have always been written by the "winners". There is a good chance that Australian, Russian, Canadian or Unitedstatian history books of the national history will dramatically change regarding their expansion/colonization of the internal borders. European history books will probably also be partially changed in the empire stages. For ex, most likely, within decades to come, Spain's national day will be changed as not for the discovery of the Americas - because this means nowadays the start of a genocide (whether involuntary or sometimes plannified) I'd be very much surprised that in 50 years' time, Britannica or Larousse are still around and their circa-millennium or today's editions are still worthy of even reading. New and old propagandas .
Edited by Sean Trane - October 27 2023 at 03:36 |
||
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
||
|
||
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Online Points: 21804 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 27 2023 at 00:48 |
|
That's not a "bias". You are essentially saying "Wikipedia does not contain a lot of propaganda in all the areas which are not prone to propaganda". I am saying "Wikipedia contains a lot of propaganda in all the areas prone to it". Those two statements are compatible. I am not saying that Wikipedia is generally unreliable, since, as you correctly point out, the vast majority of entries (numerically speaking) are not prone to propaganda. However, people are also using wikipedia to look up hot topics like the history of the state of Israel, the Ukraine war, Covid 19, and so on. It is these topics that we are discussing here. On those, I would say, Wikipedia is just as unreliable as any major news outlet, but whereas it is obvious that news outlets are biased, Wikipedia appears like a neutral source, which makes it worse IMHO. And don't even get me started on "fact checker" websites ...
No need to challenge me on that, since I neither claimed that "there are political discussions free of bias" or that the problem with Wikipedia is not a symptom of society at large.
|
||
|
||
|
I prophesy disaster
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 31 2017 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 4999 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 26 2023 at 17:56 |
|
The bias to which I refer is the bias towards topics that are prone to propaganda. There are millions of topics on Wikipedia of which the vast majority would not be prone to propaganda. To repudiate the entirety of Wikipedia on the basis of a very small proportion of it is a strongly biased viewpoint. It is the nature of politics to be propagandising, and I challenge you to find any political discussion that is free of bias, either to the left or to the right. People in the wider community do tend to lean either to the left or to the right, so why should Wikipedia be any different, especially given that it is catering to those people in the wider community? In other words, you are accusing Wikipedia of a problem that is really a problem with the wider community. |
||
|
No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.
|
||
|
||
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Online Points: 21804 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 26 2023 at 16:32 |
|
Ok - so if I'm looking up topics that are prone to propaganda, I am biased? In that case, please explain the bias. The problem with Wikipedia is that it is not a neutral platform. In theory anyone can edit all the information, but in reality the editing is heavily biased towards popular political narratives. Here's a video with more details. (preparing for lots of comments on who made the video, and hardly any comments on the points made)
|
||
|
||
|
presdoug
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 24 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 8843 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 26 2023 at 16:27 |
|
|
^^^^I have been a wiki editor, and also have written essays for college, and the process for the wiki articles I created or just added to was a lot more laborious and painstaking than the college essays I worked on. (just a bit of feedback by someone who has done both)
|
||
|
||
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Online Points: 65818 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 26 2023 at 16:20 |
|
|
^ Yeah because it's about taking in information from different sources and making the best judgement. Incorrect data? Count on it. Easily misled readers? Oh yes. Quite frankly I don't believe anything. |
||
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
||
|
||
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: August 11 2007 Location: Memphis Status: Offline Points: 10739 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 26 2023 at 15:51 |
|
|
I do a lot of work for other music sites and Wiki is quite good at band and album info. The best is Discogs and AllMusic, but Wiki is close. I can't recall ever seeing a particular mistake in that subject area.
Also was doing some reading on remote islands in the Atlantic and Pacific and wiki's info matched most other resources I had read as well. I also like to read about past presidential primaries and look at the stats from any past year, once again the info is correct and don't recall seeing any unnecessary opinions thrown in, just the facts. I can see why college professors don't want to see wiki in a research paper, any good prof is going to want you to dig deeper. Using wiki would seem lazy in that situation. |
||
|
||
|
I prophesy disaster
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 31 2017 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 4999 |
Post Options
Thanks(2)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 26 2023 at 15:26 |
|
I strongly disagree. I find Wikipedia to be quite a good source of information, much better than what might be expected from an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I have learnt quite a lot from Wikipedia, including from a wide range of highly technical subjects. I am often impressed by what articles are in Wikipedia. For example, there is even an article on the railway station that services the suburb of Sydney where I grew up.
Wikipedia is not an instrument of propaganda. That is just paranoia. Particular articles may be written and/or edited by people with a vested interest, but this issue is more about the particular topics than about Wikipedia as a whole. If you're finding propaganda in Wikipedia, it is likely because you are looking up topics that are prone to propaganda. That is not Wikipedia's fault, and perhaps shows that it is you who is biased. |
||
|
No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.
|
||
|
||
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Online Points: 21804 |
Post Options
Thanks(2)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 26 2023 at 01:23 |
|
It is a little more complicated. Propaganda usually works like this: "We need to do X because Y" where X is a proposed goal (which is a lie), and Y is some claim that is either a lie or bullsh*t. You are certainly correct in that when we expose the Y claim as propaganda, it does not automatically follow that the goal stated in X is false. Example: "We need to invade Irak because they have weapons of mass destruction". The fact that they did not have WMDs does not mean there was no reason to invade the country, it just means that there is much less reason to do so, and that more people would have criticised the decision to send troops there.
|
||
|
||
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Online Points: 21804 |
Post Options
Thanks(2)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 25 2023 at 23:58 |
|
Yes, the world would be so much better if people stopped asking questions and simply believed their government and its affiliated news outlets 100%. Asking questions is evil, do as you're told is good. Looking back at history it is obvious that all good things come from blindly following orders! And even if things go wrong ... it's never the fault of the people at the top - it's we idiots who simply aren't able to understand them properly!
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - October 25 2023 at 23:59 |
||
|
||
|
David_D
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 26 2010 Location: Copenhagen Status: Offline Points: 15792 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: October 25 2023 at 17:37 |
|
But I like your apparent contempt for lies and bulsh*tting.  Edited by David_D - October 25 2023 at 17:43 |
||
|
quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond
|
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12345 8> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Atavachron wrote:
