5 ms·

If one wants to know the official narrative of the US government or the EU, you only need to glance into a recent history book distributed in schools, or Wikipe

If one wants to know the official narrative of the US government or the EU, you only need to glance into a recent history book distributed in schools, or Wikipedia.

CleanedStar 13y ago
Of course I agree, but there's an extra reason why this is the case on Wikipedia. Let's take a look at "History of Iraq" on Wikipedia back in 2002 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Iraq&oldid=569103 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Iraq&#3... "Once known as Mesopotamia, Iraq was the site of flourishing ancient civilizations, including the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Parthian cultures. Muslims conquered Iraq in the seventh century A.D. In the eighth century, the Abassid caliphate established its capital at Baghdad, which became a frontier outpost on the Ottoman Empire." Now let's look at the US State Department profile of Iraq it had from 2001 to 2003 - http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/iraq/24819.htm http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/iraq/24819.htm "Once known as Mesopotamia, Iraq was the site of flourishing ancient civilizations, including the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Parthian cultures. Muslims conquered Iraq in the seventh century A.D. In the eighth century, the Abassid caliphate established its capital at Baghdad, which became a frontier outpost on the Ottoman Empire." Yes, the history of Iraq on Wikipedia was literally written by the US State Department. As have the histories of most of the world's countries.
- thomasz 13y ago
  Isn't it possible that the state department plagiarised Wikipedia?
- rory096 13y ago
  Given that works of the US government are automatically in the public domain, it's not surprising that its publications had useful source material for very general summaries, for the English Wikipedia anyway. But article introductions are a pretty specific case, and there are few reasons to change them often. I don't think they're good proof of bias in the details of articles.
- cafard 13y ago
  The last sentence is very strange--what would you do with as an answer in a high school history test?

If one wants to know the official narrative of the US government or the EU, you only need to glance into a recent history book distributed in schools, or Wikipedia.

CleanedStar 13y ago

Of course I agree, but there's an extra reason why this is the case on Wikipedia. Let's take a look at "History of Iraq" on Wikipedia back in 2002 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Iraq&oldid=569103 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Iraq&#3... "Once known as Mesopotamia, Iraq was the site of flourishing ancient civilizations, including the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Parthian cultures. Muslims conquered Iraq in the seventh century A.D. In the eighth century, the Abassid caliphate established its capital at Baghdad, which became a frontier outpost on the Ottoman Empire." Now let's look at the US State Department profile of Iraq it had from 2001 to 2003 - http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/iraq/24819.htm http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/iraq/24819.htm "Once known as Mesopotamia, Iraq was the site of flourishing ancient civilizations, including the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Parthian cultures. Muslims conquered Iraq in the seventh century A.D. In the eighth century, the Abassid caliphate established its capital at Baghdad, which became a frontier outpost on the Ottoman Empire." Yes, the history of Iraq on Wikipedia was literally written by the US State Department. As have the histories of most of the world's countries.

thomasz 13y ago
Isn't it possible that the state department plagiarised Wikipedia?
rory096 13y ago
Given that works of the US government are automatically in the public domain, it's not surprising that its publications had useful source material for very general summaries, for the English Wikipedia anyway. But article introductions are a pretty specific case, and there are few reasons to change them often. I don't think they're good proof of bias in the details of articles.
cafard 13y ago
The last sentence is very strange--what would you do with as an answer in a high school history test?