new | show | ask | jobs Github

jfengel 2 hours ago

If you think that's bad, you should compare the pages for Genghis Khan and Mr. Rogers.

▲

SkinTaco 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You should've checked those pages first, they're actually very neutral lol.

▲

ryoshu 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If Ghengis Khan was raping & pillaging in 2026 his Wikipedia article might have a more modern slant.

	▲	2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

faidit 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How is the Trump or Obama article not neutral? You can literally correct them yourself if there is anything untrue or biased.

▲

appreciatorBus 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You could correct them but the admins responsible for the slant will just revert them or debate you until you give up.

https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/how-wikipedia-whitewashe...

▲

nekzn an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It all boils down to whatever adjectives you can use or not. You can say some politician is a racist in the first paragraphs of their Wikipedia article, but you can’t say some politician filled a country with immigrants from the third world. That implies a bias, because one thing is seen by the editors as damning enough to warrant a mention whilst the other isn’t, despite both things being considered somewhat equally bad by different sides of the political aisle.

(I know the answers to this comment will be “oh but it’s not the same…”. Spare me. You missed the point of my comment.)

▲

hackyhacky an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> you can’t say some politician filled a country with immigrants from the third world.

You can absolutely say that, if it's true. As it stands, I don't know of country "filled with immigrants", so it's possible your edits are getting revoked for being incendiary hyperbole.

I'm also not aware of any politician described as racist in the first paragraph of their article. Can you indicate who you have in mind?

More realistically, controversies about racism and immigration are likely to be mentioned in a section of the given article, not in the first paragraph. That strikes me as a very fair way to handle it, which conveniently disarms accusations of bias against Wikipedia.

	▲	an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

Forgeties79 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Those aren’t the same thing. I’m saying that and I did not miss the point of your comment. You can’t just declare the opposite opinion invalid like that