site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   3705 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for November 12, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What is your take on Wikipedia these days? Some say it has become politically biased. I've never spent much time on that site myself, so I'll just offer up these weasel words for the tiny bit of context to my question. :)

To add on Wikipedia, his founder will be in the Web Summit in Lisbon next week, at the same list of panel of one of the Black Lives Matter founders? Why? Because the organisers are an Irish left-wing tech organisation.

On anything vaguely controversial, it is really worth reading the talk page and checking the edit history. This is one of the best and least-used things about Wikipedia: you can inspect the sausage as it's being made.

A recent example: a trans woman is attempting to rewrite the Sex page, and is at least receiving some pushback.

In my experience, the non-english speaking Wikipedia(s) have historically been much more politically biased (in ways which aren't announced or marked visibly) than the english speaking wikipedias.

Often the translations to english for some foreign language articles seem (to me) to either remove or explicitly mark a lot of the bias and disputed content in the original. Translations into other languages often seem to introduce some biases or one sided phrasing, that don't exist in the English language versions, and which remain unmarked or unresolved for long periods of time.

I've always attributed this to much smaller staff of regular and well trained contributors for the non english speaking pages.

I can anecdotally confirm that this is starting to regularly not be the case for pages which are politically relevant in the english speaking world.

For the most high traffic pages, the bias seems to be in check. It's either removed, turned balanced, or marked as controversial or biased.

But high traffic pages are a small % of the totality of Wikipedia. It looks to me like many pages which have political relevance in the english speaking world (especially in US and the UK), but have middling or low traffic, have been captured by one or the other side of each specific local debate. Such pages seem to me to present unlabelled disputed and biased views for a much longer period of time than they seemed to, say, 10+ years ago. I'm not sure if there's a way to systematically measure this, and do a historic study (the data is available!)

My experience is that it is extremely politically biased--on any page where political bias seems likely. This is probably to be expected; "wokism" (or at least a certain strain of it) is arguably just "the unstable populist ideology that emerged from post-smartphone internet memes in the anglophone world" and so is the default ideology of all websites minus those that are explicitly anti-woke (compare Conquest's Laws). Wikipedia is online and not explicitly anti-woke, ergo it has the standard anglophone internet bias (where applicable).

Fortunately--I think!--most Wikipedia pages are not (yet?) politically relevant, and thus often quite useful and more or less devoid of political bias (though not, it bears mentioning, other kinds of bias, for example against any heterodox views on the relevant subject matter). Many people like to remind others that Wikipedia, while useful, should probably not be taken as a definitive or authoritative source of anything. It is my view that this warning is probably wisely heeded, however, in connection with all sources of knowledge.

Fortunately--I think!--most Wikipedia pages are not (yet?) politically relevant, and thus often quite useful and more or less devoid of political bias

I have noticed that more and more pages will shoehorn in political topics that aren't relevant. Can't remember examples, but there are a lot of pages that toss around words like "white supremacy" with no context.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats