5 ms·

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

by faidit 4mo ago

appreciatorBus 4mo ago
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-whitewashes-mao https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/how-wikipedia-whitewashe...
nekzn 4mo ago
[flagged]
- hackyhacky 4mo ago
  > 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.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - portmanteur 4mo ago
    “Filled with immigrants” will always be a subjective term. Does it need to be 100% immigrants to count as “filled”? 50%? 25%? Canadian residents, for example, as of 2021 [1], were 23% foreign-born, and further 2.5% non-permanent residents. In the five year period from 2016 to 2021, the number of foreign-born Canadians increased by 18% alone, which to me is significant growth. The number of non-permanent residents doubled from 2016 to 2021, and tripled again by July 2024 [2]. The share of third-generation+ Canadians, defined as those born in Canada to parents born in Canada, was 56% in 2021 [1]. When the 2026 census data is released next year, it’s estimated that number could be as low as 52%. [1] https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/fogs-spg/page.cfm?topic=9&lang=E&dguid=2021A000011124 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/fo... [2] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91-215-x/91-215-x2024001-eng.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91-215-x/91-215-x2024001...
    - hackyhacky 4mo ago
      > “Filled with immigrants” will always be a subjective term. An encyclopedia is no place for subjectivity. [1] > Canadian residents, I don't care. I'm not here to discuss immigration. We're talking about Wikipedia and its standards. You can like immigration or be against it, but it's not Wikipedia's job to allow you to express your opinion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...
      - hsuduebc2 4mo ago
        Absolutely. I usually see this type of posts on twitter where people are simply mad that they can't shit on imigrants like that in there.
      - Pay08 4mo ago
        Language as a whole is subjective.
        deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
        Forgeties79 4mo ago
        This feels rather hand wavy and reductive. The bar isn’t “Wikipedia is completely unbiased and objective” - that’s a fool’s errand, it can’t be done. But we still strive to account for biases and reach for objectivity as best we can, and there are situations where language (with its subjectivity taken into due consideration) and claims clearly are not an attempt at that.
        hackyhacky 4mo ago
        Correct. All language is subjective, but not all language is equally subjective.
    - Forgeties79 4mo ago
      This just reads to me like you have an ax to grind and are mad Wikipedia won’t give you the surface for it.
- Forgeties79 4mo ago
  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

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

by faidit 4mo ago

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

appreciatorBus 4mo ago

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

nekzn 4mo ago

[flagged]

hackyhacky 4mo ago
> 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.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- portmanteur 4mo ago
  “Filled with immigrants” will always be a subjective term. Does it need to be 100% immigrants to count as “filled”? 50%? 25%? Canadian residents, for example, as of 2021 [1], were 23% foreign-born, and further 2.5% non-permanent residents. In the five year period from 2016 to 2021, the number of foreign-born Canadians increased by 18% alone, which to me is significant growth. The number of non-permanent residents doubled from 2016 to 2021, and tripled again by July 2024 [2]. The share of third-generation+ Canadians, defined as those born in Canada to parents born in Canada, was 56% in 2021 [1]. When the 2026 census data is released next year, it’s estimated that number could be as low as 52%. [1] https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/fogs-spg/page.cfm?topic=9&lang=E&dguid=2021A000011124 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/fo... [2] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91-215-x/91-215-x2024001-eng.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91-215-x/91-215-x2024001...
  - hackyhacky 4mo ago
    > “Filled with immigrants” will always be a subjective term. An encyclopedia is no place for subjectivity. [1] > Canadian residents, I don't care. I'm not here to discuss immigration. We're talking about Wikipedia and its standards. You can like immigration or be against it, but it's not Wikipedia's job to allow you to express your opinion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...
    - hsuduebc2 4mo ago
      Absolutely. I usually see this type of posts on twitter where people are simply mad that they can't shit on imigrants like that in there.
    - Pay08 4mo ago
      Language as a whole is subjective.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
      - Forgeties79 4mo ago
        This feels rather hand wavy and reductive. The bar isn’t “Wikipedia is completely unbiased and objective” - that’s a fool’s errand, it can’t be done. But we still strive to account for biases and reach for objectivity as best we can, and there are situations where language (with its subjectivity taken into due consideration) and claims clearly are not an attempt at that.
        hackyhacky 4mo ago
        Correct. All language is subjective, but not all language is equally subjective.
  - Forgeties79 4mo ago
    This just reads to me like you have an ax to grind and are mad Wikipedia won’t give you the surface for it.
Forgeties79 4mo ago
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