Talk:Wikipedia

Exposing bias

I'm basing the bias section on these two articles:

• https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/11/meet-wikipedias-ayn-rand-loving-founder-and-wikimedia-foundations-regime-change-operative-ceo/
• https://medium.com/@kamy1/racist-wikipedia-da005c564d13

As they both have plenty of sources, it's possible and recommended to use them in the references (otherwise the whole section would just say [1] everywhere).

If anyone wants to pick this up. Otherwise I'll probably get to filling out the rest of the section this week.--— Comrade CriticalResist ^(talk) 14:25, 24 November 2020 (-03)

Comrade, your articles are top quality, you've been doing a great work. Please, consider joining us on Telegram so we can share efforts more efficiently

— Supreme Comrade Felipe Forte ^(talk) 21:11, 24 November 2020 (-03)

I've fixed some inaccuracies and updated the case of the Congolese Genocide. Good work, comrade. There are also many examples of anticommunism and censorship in Wikipedia that we can add over time. Such as the "Deprecated sources" page, which contain many anti-imperialist media outlets that was censored by Wikipedia. — Supreme Comrade Felipe Forte ^(talk) 05:41, 25 November 2020 (-03)

Suspicion of Wikipedia (user) behavior towards Mankind Quarterly.

When browsing the wikipedia page for Mankind Quarterly; the article summary implies that MQ is a scientific peer-reviewed journal that is controversial: (this is wrong of course; the reality is that MQ is a psuedoscientific journal that promotes unscientific racism).

MQ's criticisms are also downplayed.

Mankind Quarterly is a peer-reviewed journal that has been described as a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment", a "white supremacist journal", and "a pseudo-scholarly outlet for promoting racial inequality". It covers physical and cultural anthropology, including human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, linguistics, mythology, archaeology, and biology. It is published by the Ulster Institute for Social Research, which is presided over by Richard Lynn.

A Wikipedia user correctly pointed this discrepancy out; that the "peer-review label" might send a false message of scientific credibility, as the wikipedia article on Peer review does not point out that Peer review can be manipulated to promote a false sense of credibility. However, a Wikipedia admin had dissmised the possiblity out of "not being the average editor":

Well-said. To the average reader, these descriptions are badges indicating that the journal is respectable and reliable. Sure, many of us know that there are too many predatory journals (this one isn't predatory) that also use that description, but we aren't the average reader. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should adapt our writing because we think our readers aren't sophisticated enough to understand us. And as soon as people read beyond the opening phrase, they'll see that this is generally considered to be a crappy journal, peer review and academic notwithstanding. But let me propose an alternative wording that might satisfy us all, by just reordering the lead a bit:

Mathsci and Aquillion also correctly pointed out that Mankind Quarterly is not a reliable source; but a Wikipedia editor, DishingMachine, had reverted changed made by Mathsci that lists the criticisms of MQ, under the guise of "no explanation".

This is a case of administrative negligence and potential racism that should be documented in our article on Wikipedia. - Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 17:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)