8 ms·

not a fan of China government but in this case I tend to believe them, I've seen Wikipedia volunteers spread actual disinformation in a concerted effort espec

not a fan of China government but in this case I tend to believe them, I've seen Wikipedia volunteers spread actual disinformation in a concerted effort especially on politically charged topics.

michaelsbradley 5y ago
downvoted for lack of evidence/examples.
- andyxor 5y ago
  well pick any American politician right of center and check their wikipedia page.
  - krageon 5y ago
    Every US politician that anyone would actually know is extreme right, so this is a very big group. Not a very useful classification, you may as well have said "any US politician". Then we get to the point where it is unclear what your actual problem is with their wikipedia pages. The only thing that can be concluded is that you apparently believe the wikipedia page of every US politician is somehow anomalous. It tells us nothing.
    - andyxor 5y ago
      I mean, most of Republicans on wikipedia are vilified as "far-right conspiracy theorists" and all shades of evil, with links to fake news as source of information (Washington Post for example) one can argue, that if MSM spreads disinfo what can you expect from wikipedians, but the problem is their "power editors" and admins are a small clique with very particular political bias, it's just another echo chamber
      - Omnitaus 5y ago
        Wikipedia absolutely has a conservative bent, I wouldn't call the editing body "liberal" for using a newspaper owned by a union-busting multibillionaire as a source You didn't really respond to the assertion that all American politicians are right-wing, but it's true. We have a "blood and soil" far right party and a "diverse corporate oligopoly" center-right party.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        > You didn't really respond to the assertion that all American politicians are right-wing, but it's true. "Two people repeating it on HN comments" != "it's true". It really boils down to: What's your standard of reference? You seem to want to use Europe (I assume) as the standard for defining left and right in US politics. Why do you consider that a reasonable thing to do? And even if you consider it a reasonable thing, why Europe? Why not Asia? Or the Middle East? Or Africa? Or the world as a whole? Or why not, you know, use the US as the standard for judging what left and right are in US politics?
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        I have noticed this thing where people get really offended if you were to say "America is a Western European nation", constantly pointing out that America is sampled from the whole world, and a rapidly shrinking subset of that world is Western Europe. In fact if one were to say that today, they might even be accused of Eurocentrism, racism or other bad things. Right up until politics, crime rates, infrastructure, public policy, or really any matter of consequence is discussed, at which point we transform back into a Western European nation. There must be a word to describe this type of dualist rhetoric but I can't quite put my finger on it. Also, those people complaining about the Democrat or Republican party being too right wing tend to be Americans who know nothing about right wing political parties in Europe. Yes, left wing parties in a multi-party system are much more radical in Europe, but so are right wing parties. What these people want is the stability and institutional weight of a party in the two-party system but the radicalism of a European left-wing party.
        krageon 5y ago
        Are you under the impression that if the hypothetical scope were moved off of Europe (why even assume it is on there?), US political parties would seem less unilaterally right-wing? I don't think you could make a coherent (and truthful) case for that, but I might be interested to read it.
      - krageon 5y ago
        > vilified When it is just the truth, you don't need to spin it to have a certain kind of impact. The impact exists even when you view things impassively, without much care one way or the other.
  - michaelsbradley 5y ago
    please give an example with quote/s, link/s, and your summary analysis.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- x0x0 5y ago
  Nazis: https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/ https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-na... Then there's this: > Most of Scottish Wikipedia Written By American in Mangled English https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wikipedia-written-by-american-in-mangled-english https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wiki... Some examples of the writing here: https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1298579510581960705 https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1298579510581960705 And finally, I remember some translated wikipedia language was mostly written by like 10 people and went kind of nuts, but I can't find a link. This stuff is like @tptacek bait -- I heard of these by reading his twitter.
  - nextaccountic 5y ago
    Those two are examples of lone individuals spreading misinformation, but not a concerted effort of Wikimedia itself or one of its chapters
    - x0x0 5y ago
      Using wikipedia. Wikipedia can't disclaim the information on wikipedia.org if they want to be a credible organization.
    - lelandfe 5y ago
      And the first example isn’t even that - it’s an editor who is trying to reduce the usage of sources that stem from Nazi propaganda and to limit flowery unsourced language around the Nazis. Other editors get in her way, but that’s still in good faith. Not exactly a situation that backs up that commenter’s point, for sure.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    The first is not an example of misinformation at all. The second isn't politically motivated, but simple vandalism.
    - x0x0 5y ago
KerrickStaley 5y ago
That's not what's happening here though. China has for years put enormous effort into promoting its worldview on the China/Taiwan issue in every way it can, even though that worldview contradicts the facts on the ground. Taiwan is de-facto an independent country with its own government and military sovereignty, and the majority of citizens of Taiwan are happy with that arrangement. China saying that Wikipedia Taiwan is spreading misinformation is just an effort to warp reality to fit China's alternate-universe version of the facts.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  Taiwan (i.e. the ROC) is not a "de-facto" country, it _is_ a country. I don't get the feeling you're anti-Taiwan, but I think calling Taiwan a "de-facto" implicitly questions its status and should be avoided.
  - anakaine 5y ago
    I'm reasonably certain the "de-facto" wording is used as Taiwan isn't actually recognised formally and fully as an independent country internationally. Thats not to say it shouldn't be, but it acknowledges the current truth.
    - thefringthing 5y ago
      They don't even officially acknowledge themselves to be an independent country; they claim all of China as their territory, not just Taiwan.
      - Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
        This is very much outdated and a relic of the times when anti-communist world powers believed they could maybe remove communism from mainland china. It is a believe held today only by a small minority. https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3951560 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3951560
      - CogitoCogito 5y ago

not a fan of China government but in this case I tend to believe them, I've seen Wikipedia volunteers spread actual disinformation in a concerted effort especially on politically charged topics.

michaelsbradley 5y ago

downvoted for lack of evidence/examples.

andyxor 5y ago
well pick any American politician right of center and check their wikipedia page.
- krageon 5y ago
  Every US politician that anyone would actually know is extreme right, so this is a very big group. Not a very useful classification, you may as well have said "any US politician". Then we get to the point where it is unclear what your actual problem is with their wikipedia pages. The only thing that can be concluded is that you apparently believe the wikipedia page of every US politician is somehow anomalous. It tells us nothing.
  - andyxor 5y ago
    I mean, most of Republicans on wikipedia are vilified as "far-right conspiracy theorists" and all shades of evil, with links to fake news as source of information (Washington Post for example) one can argue, that if MSM spreads disinfo what can you expect from wikipedians, but the problem is their "power editors" and admins are a small clique with very particular political bias, it's just another echo chamber
    - Omnitaus 5y ago
      Wikipedia absolutely has a conservative bent, I wouldn't call the editing body "liberal" for using a newspaper owned by a union-busting multibillionaire as a source You didn't really respond to the assertion that all American politicians are right-wing, but it's true. We have a "blood and soil" far right party and a "diverse corporate oligopoly" center-right party.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        > You didn't really respond to the assertion that all American politicians are right-wing, but it's true. "Two people repeating it on HN comments" != "it's true". It really boils down to: What's your standard of reference? You seem to want to use Europe (I assume) as the standard for defining left and right in US politics. Why do you consider that a reasonable thing to do? And even if you consider it a reasonable thing, why Europe? Why not Asia? Or the Middle East? Or Africa? Or the world as a whole? Or why not, you know, use the US as the standard for judging what left and right are in US politics?
        rsj_hn 5y ago
        I have noticed this thing where people get really offended if you were to say "America is a Western European nation", constantly pointing out that America is sampled from the whole world, and a rapidly shrinking subset of that world is Western Europe. In fact if one were to say that today, they might even be accused of Eurocentrism, racism or other bad things. Right up until politics, crime rates, infrastructure, public policy, or really any matter of consequence is discussed, at which point we transform back into a Western European nation. There must be a word to describe this type of dualist rhetoric but I can't quite put my finger on it. Also, those people complaining about the Democrat or Republican party being too right wing tend to be Americans who know nothing about right wing political parties in Europe. Yes, left wing parties in a multi-party system are much more radical in Europe, but so are right wing parties. What these people want is the stability and institutional weight of a party in the two-party system but the radicalism of a European left-wing party.
        krageon 5y ago
        Are you under the impression that if the hypothetical scope were moved off of Europe (why even assume it is on there?), US political parties would seem less unilaterally right-wing? I don't think you could make a coherent (and truthful) case for that, but I might be interested to read it.
    - krageon 5y ago
      > vilified When it is just the truth, you don't need to spin it to have a certain kind of impact. The impact exists even when you view things impassively, without much care one way or the other.
- michaelsbradley 5y ago
  please give an example with quote/s, link/s, and your summary analysis.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
x0x0 5y ago
Nazis: https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/ https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-na... Then there's this: > Most of Scottish Wikipedia Written By American in Mangled English https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wikipedia-written-by-american-in-mangled-english https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wiki... Some examples of the writing here: https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1298579510581960705 https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1298579510581960705 And finally, I remember some translated wikipedia language was mostly written by like 10 people and went kind of nuts, but I can't find a link. This stuff is like @tptacek bait -- I heard of these by reading his twitter.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  Those two are examples of lone individuals spreading misinformation, but not a concerted effort of Wikimedia itself or one of its chapters
  - x0x0 5y ago
    Using wikipedia. Wikipedia can't disclaim the information on wikipedia.org if they want to be a credible organization.
  - lelandfe 5y ago
    And the first example isn’t even that - it’s an editor who is trying to reduce the usage of sources that stem from Nazi propaganda and to limit flowery unsourced language around the Nazis. Other editors get in her way, but that’s still in good faith. Not exactly a situation that backs up that commenter’s point, for sure.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  The first is not an example of misinformation at all. The second isn't politically motivated, but simple vandalism.
  - x0x0 5y ago

KerrickStaley 5y ago

That's not what's happening here though. China has for years put enormous effort into promoting its worldview on the China/Taiwan issue in every way it can, even though that worldview contradicts the facts on the ground. Taiwan is de-facto an independent country with its own government and military sovereignty, and the majority of citizens of Taiwan are happy with that arrangement. China saying that Wikipedia Taiwan is spreading misinformation is just an effort to warp reality to fit China's alternate-universe version of the facts.

CogitoCogito 5y ago
Taiwan (i.e. the ROC) is not a "de-facto" country, it _is_ a country. I don't get the feeling you're anti-Taiwan, but I think calling Taiwan a "de-facto" implicitly questions its status and should be avoided.
- anakaine 5y ago
  I'm reasonably certain the "de-facto" wording is used as Taiwan isn't actually recognised formally and fully as an independent country internationally. Thats not to say it shouldn't be, but it acknowledges the current truth.
  - thefringthing 5y ago
    They don't even officially acknowledge themselves to be an independent country; they claim all of China as their territory, not just Taiwan.
    - Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
      This is very much outdated and a relic of the times when anti-communist world powers believed they could maybe remove communism from mainland china. It is a believe held today only by a small minority. https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3951560 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3951560
    - CogitoCogito 5y ago