I have written quite many blog posts about the most blatant and egregious ways that Wikipedia shows its political bias, which I have summarized in detail particularly in this article. The short summary of it is: When a Wikipedia article deals with a person, group or ideology that the social justice ideologues hate, the entire article, and very prominently its lead (the part before the table of contents) will be stock full of endless lists of irrelevant minutia attacking that target, while articles that deal with people, groups or ideologies that the ideologues do not care about or support, there will be no such lists.
However, there are many other much subtler and surreptitious ways that Wikipedia editors can insert leftist ideology in their articles.
As an example, what is the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the term PTSD, or "post-traumatic stress syndrome"? For the vast majority of people the first (and often only) picture that enters their mind is a shell-shocked war veteran who has crippling mental problems because of the horrors of war that he has experienced.
That is, in fact, what PTSD is most famous for. One would, thus, think that the Wikipedia article about the subject would mention exactly that as the first example. Yet, this is what the lead says:
Another example: COINTELPRO was a series of covert infiltration and discrediting, often illegal, operations performed by the FBI in the 50's and 60's against groups and movements considered subversive and dangerous.
What is the first example that comes to mind of a political ideology that was considered highly dangerous in the United States in the 50's and 60'? I think most people would think of Communism.
Wikipedia gives a long list of examples of ideologies and movements that were targeted by the operation. From all those examples, which one is the first one given? "Feminist organizations", of course.
Because, you know, when people think of what the United States was most paranoid about in the 50's and 60's, "feminist organizations" is the first thing that comes to mind.
These are not the only examples. I think they quite well reflect the mentality, and agenda, of Wikipedia editors. Most often lists of examples start with the most prominent and well-known examples, the most important examples, and proceed to the least important ones. Well, what do you think is the most important example to these editors?
However, there are many other much subtler and surreptitious ways that Wikipedia editors can insert leftist ideology in their articles.
As an example, what is the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the term PTSD, or "post-traumatic stress syndrome"? For the vast majority of people the first (and often only) picture that enters their mind is a shell-shocked war veteran who has crippling mental problems because of the horrors of war that he has experienced.
That is, in fact, what PTSD is most famous for. One would, thus, think that the Wikipedia article about the subject would mention exactly that as the first example. Yet, this is what the lead says:
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental disorder that can develop after a person is exposed to a traumatic event, such as sexual assault, warfare, traffic collisions, child abuse, or other threats on a person's life.Why is "sexual assault" the very first example given, rather than the by far more commonly known "warfare"?
Another example: COINTELPRO was a series of covert infiltration and discrediting, often illegal, operations performed by the FBI in the 50's and 60's against groups and movements considered subversive and dangerous.
What is the first example that comes to mind of a political ideology that was considered highly dangerous in the United States in the 50's and 60'? I think most people would think of Communism.
Wikipedia gives a long list of examples of ideologies and movements that were targeted by the operation. From all those examples, which one is the first one given? "Feminist organizations", of course.
Because, you know, when people think of what the United States was most paranoid about in the 50's and 60's, "feminist organizations" is the first thing that comes to mind.
These are not the only examples. I think they quite well reflect the mentality, and agenda, of Wikipedia editors. Most often lists of examples start with the most prominent and well-known examples, the most important examples, and proceed to the least important ones. Well, what do you think is the most important example to these editors?
hello warp, it has been a while since Coronavirus outbreak in the world. since you wrote early about it lots if developments happened will you write a blog about it after a reconsideration of the full events happened here and there in the world? thanks
ReplyDeleteI haven't been really inspired to write about it. There's almost anything else in the news anyway...
Delete