Thread: Wikipedia and the art of censorship

Howard row over Wikipedia edits

Wikipedia logo
Anyone can edit the popular online encyclopaedia
Staff in the Australian prime minister's department have been accused of editing potentially damaging entries in online encyclopaedia Wikipedia.

Workers made 126 edits on subjects such as immigration policy and Treasurer Peter Costello, a local daily said.

The details came from a new website that tracks those who make edits. Staff from the CIA and the BBC among others have also made changes, it has shown.

Howard at What He is Best At!

Howard gives new meaning to democracy.

While all politicians are a bit slimy, but this man takes the cake since he is also the greatest howling wonder of Freedom and Democracy!

Originally Posted by wkllaw

So the quantity isn't the same as the english one, but how's the quality, are there anyone that beats the english in quality? Perhaps the German wiki?

The Russian one is quite expanded and accurate, it even features content that isn't available in the English version (certain birds, for example).
Generally, there is some Russian bias, but not more than the American bias on American history and weaponry articles.
It even denied the rumours that the MiG-23 scored victories against F-15 and F-16. It added that the full data are hard to obtain, but that it's unlikely.



The Swedish wiki is written with a noticeable leftist bias. Every historic feit, expecially when occuring in the meantime (and especially in the Middle East) focuses itself on the tragedies of the people more than the political, economical and military sides of the questing. Sometimes it is annoying.

The Dutch wiki is one that I didn't like. It has limited content (as the Swedish one) but sometimes it goes over the top. So is Mogadishu, according to wikiNL, the economic, financial and cultural capital of Somalia with a working university and a seat of the government. I don't know if the writer of the article is stuck in 1992 or that PC-ness has smitten it. Sometimes I read clearly POV statements: "Sierra Leone really has something to offer to the tourist", or small, hardly noticeable biases like for example: "The human rights situation in the country has improved, death penalty has been abolished, and the new law that prescribed death penalty to group rapists has been changed into life sentence".

Originally Posted by gunnut

Here's another thing, how do you know that the old traditional news media is neutral or doesn't have an agenda?

News media has this "professional" aura around it, making it look like a reputable source of news. However, the way news are presented is sometimes heavily left leaning. And people don't know that. That's the scary part.

Bingo!

Originally Posted by texacali

One stop shopping for critical information leaves one open to deadly self-deception.

Here's a hint: The best - and most reliable - Wikipedia articles are bloated with sources, links, further reading etc. If an assertion has no source, a caveat emptor "Citation Needed" will appear next to the sentence or paragraph. (Though the best articles by definition will have few to no "Citation Needed" warnings.)

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Here's a hint: The best - and most reliable - Wikipedia articles are bloated with sources, links, further reading etc. If an assertion has no source, a caveat emptor "Citation Needed" will appear next to the sentence or paragraph. (Though the best articles by definition will have few to no "Citation Needed" warnings.)

Sometimes, the content of a source is nearly copy-pasted into the Wiki article.

Originally Posted by entropy

Sometimes, the content of a source is nearly copy-pasted into the Wiki article.

Correct and if that source is reliable, so much the better.