Wikipedia aims/aimed on being unbiased. I guess it depends on the language, the Czech one seems to be rather good.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Wikipedia aims/aimed on being unbiased. I guess it depends on the language, the Czech one seems to be rather good.
In some areas both the German and the English versions are very biased towards the political left spectrum. A famous example is the formerly well-reputated historian Daniel Ganser. As soon as he published politically not so correct findings, his entry was edited to put him into a bad light.
I agree it ended up biased in case of many articles, cannot judge those regarding Daniel Ganser as this is the first time I've heard the name.
However, the original intention was to write it in an unbiased manner, however hard it is. Information is power, no wonder the real Wiki attracts people who want to misuse it to their own benefit, or simply to manipulate potential readers. I've never been a Wikipedist myself, so I only have a vague knowledge about the editting process there.
Anyway, I believe we should aim on providing as unbiased and reliable information as we can on Propolis. Money talks, and there might be pressure to promote/denounce certain tokens/initiatives/witnesses/etc. I would like to make clear that our intention is to avoid such practices.
100% agree on this!!
Ganser has fans on both ends of the political spectrum. I went to read his article on the German Wikipedia and couldn't see any bias in either way. He's criticized a lot, but always with sources, and often as quotes.
I once saw an interview with him and he had not such a neutral view. E.g. he requested that some items in his curriculum get corrected, but the Wikipedia editors insisted on their view. It at least leaves some questions.
He also tried to sue swiss media for calling him a conspiracy theorist. Editors can't cave in to the persons described in the article when they feel like they want to be presented more favorably.
And how is a disagreement about curriculum items connected to left/right-wing politics?
As initially mentioned, my interpretation is that lefties´ Wikipedia try to make him look bad - via biased selection of references. But let´s not go down this rabbit hole. Everybody can can a different view on this and no chance to sort it out without entering a lengthy discussion.
As long as these accusations stay so vague, and seemingly biased by your own political identity, that's very true.
He gets a lot of props in the article for the parts of his work which have merit. He's being called out for the same wild speculation that cost him his reputation and his job, and a lack of distance to the far-right.
I have the slight feeling you base this opinion on the interview and other sources, not the article itself.
Might be.