datsci_est_2015 9 hours ago

No, he's probably alluding to something involving race science or "socialism" though. These people often are.

Kind of. I'm referring to pages on communism or communism adjacent topics, socialism and the middle eastern conflicts involving Isreal. I find that they make a claim about a state of the world and they use quotes from well known people to support it but those well known people aren't historians and they are very often misrepresenting the state of the world at the time. I'll see stuff that frames an action in a positive way and then uses a quote from someone who 'gives the Marxist perspective of history' but a Marxist perspective on history is ahistorical.

	▲	tim333 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Some of that stuff, rather than deliberate ideology may be the writers doing what they can but not getting it quite right. You can always try correcting it yourself if there is a factual error and you have a suitable source to cite.
	▲	datsci_est_2015 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I feel like you're one of the only people reading about Marxist topics on Wikipedia, given that most (intelligent) people genuinely interested on the topic will engage with primary sources. Very rarely do I read "below the fold" on any topic, but especially on topics concerning sociopolitical issues is my scrollbar completely untouched. You may be raising criticism genuinely, but you're fighting a very uphill battle because many of the people who cry about Wikipedia bias would want, e.g., the article on Communism to start as it does on Conservapedia: > Communism is a left-wing anti-democratic and violent ideology dedicated to overthrowing capitalism, replacing it with an unelected "dictatorship of the proletariat" by technocrats and an atheist elite. which is, for lack of a more honest and concise word, retarded.