This past March, researchers from the Anti-Defamation League accused Wikipedia of biased coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They found that a group of editors had coordinated to produce thousands of anti-Israel entries, and that the platform’s administration had failed to respond. This is not the first example of biased parties abusing Wikipedia’s editorial policies. A variety of Wiki sections in multiple languages have been subjected to organized “raids” carried out by state propagandists, far-right activists, and even terrorist supporters. Some critics believe that the Web's main encyclopedia needs reforms, such as the introduction of user verification. Others doubt such measures will help, questioning the viability of collective content moderation in the digital age. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is gaining unprecedented influence as a training dataset for major AI language models, and distortions in its content have already affected the responses that the resulting chat tools give.

Nope, before you’re jumping the gun by accusing me of spreading Russian propaganda simply because the domain ends in .ru you should know that “The Insider” is a Russian opposition publication like Meduza. Shows a lot how you can’t place absolute trust and adulation on any single platform and entity these days otherwise it might lead to this one day.

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
    161·
    18 days ago

    Wiki Wars: Editors and propagandists are fighting for influence over the online encyclopedia’s most controversial entries

    Oh shit this sounds good, definitely the whole saga of Wikipedia fighting back against propaganda is endlessly fascinating and they are an important success story as regards how to do it, since they’ve been mostly-successfully resisting it for decades, while most of the rest of the internet has been getting steamrolled since in the last few years it really got going in their domains.

    wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.world

    theins.ru

    Lol okay never mind

    Nope, before you’re jumping the gun by accusing me of spreading Russian propaganda simply because the domain ends in .ru you should know

    I mean… I’m pretty skeptical. I have interacted with you before and I remember your level of commitment to anything factual being pretty minuscule. But sure. It’s worth at least taking a look, I guess, instead of just operating on preconceptions even if they are well-informed ones.

    researchers from the Anti-Defamation League accused Wikipedia of biased coverage

    Some critics believe that the Web’s main encyclopedia needs reforms, such as the introduction of user verification

    Lmao I think we’re done here

    • remotelove@lemmy.ca
      81·
      17 days ago

      Is that whole account dedicated to trashing Wikipedia? Holy fuck some people need a life.

      • wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.worldOP
        15·
        17 days ago

        You would’ve said the same thing against victims of priest sexual abuses if you were a regular citizen in the 50’s or so.

        • remotelove@lemmy.ca
          51·
          17 days ago

          I can’t tell if that is an attempt at an insult or what? The speed at which you charged forward with a logical fallacy is amazing though: Because I called out your account as narrow minded, I would have supported/ignored sexual abuse by priests in the 50’s? Lulzwut?

          • wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.worldOP
            16·
            17 days ago

            Look at how cute you’re trying to deflect and gaslight away from the fact that you’re not reacting well to the hard truth that Wikipedia is not a “magical platform” after all, especially by committing so-called “psychological projection”.

            One of the main point of the comparison is the parallel between churches in the 50’s and Wikipedia of today; you would’ve been summarily dismissed as an “atheistic commie bent on destroying the country” if you lift a finger against churches in the era, especially at the height of McCarthyism. The same is happening to critics of Wikipedia today, with people like you dismissing them as “far-right obscurantists bent on destroying knowledge”, which is the essence of strawman fallacy.

            You clearly displayed your naivete right there when you summarily dismiss accounts which are solely used to expose any scandals in any companies or organizations as “narrow minded”; are you ten? Perhaps you should go sit at the kids table and cry a river there.