• halvar@lemy.lol
    523·
    5 days ago

    That’s probably because most mass killings under capitalist regimes are just generally called “mass killings”. They are your regular, run of the mill mass killings that aren’t really newsworthy and that we are accustomed to.

      • halvar@lemy.lol
        122·
        4 days ago

        My previous comment was very cynical, but when you think about it communism is the historical anomaly. Sure you can point to the Mass killings wikipedia page, but you can also do that with other topics and they also are separated into “XY under communism” and “XY” articles. XY could be stuff like “Economy”, “Urban development”, “Housing” or “Worker’s rights”. It’s just a convention wikipedia seems to adhere to.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          171·
          4 days ago

          In what way is communism a historical anomaly in a manner that capitalism does not fit into? Both are part of the same historical development process.

          • halvar@lemy.lol
            11·
            4 days ago

            It’s an anomaly in the sense that it was present in high gear for around 70 years in the 20th century and most people (who are likely to read wikipedia) probably don’t live in it right now. That’s my one and only reason for calling it that.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              51·
              3 days ago

              I suppose I can see that logic, but capitalism too is a historical anomaly, and will too become a part of history while socialism and eventually communism becomes dominant. Framing it this way is a viewpoint that sees capitalism more as static and unchanging than anything else.

  • Cypher@aussie.zone
    4517·
    5 days ago

    You know you can make a page yourself right?

    Go ahead and compile a list with sources referenced and write it up according to the style guide.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
      303·
      5 days ago

      People have done this repeatedly and been nuked every time. It’s extremely fucking telling that all the Wikipedia true believers have clearly never actually looked into the process themselves

      • the_fuckler@nord.pubEnglish
        58·
        4 days ago

        That would be because you’re supposed to contribute articles to the repository before you’re allowed to just go scribbling on the walls. Authorarian and draconian, I know. A system likely devised by the CIA to oppress white people who never go outside

          • the_fuckler@nord.pubEnglish
            58·
            4 days ago

            Life’s hard when I have to have the bare minimum of rigor before vandalizing public works

            • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
              101·
              4 days ago

              vandalizing public works

              Lol. Calm down. Creating a Wikipedia page is not “vandalizing public works”

              • the_fuckler@nord.pubEnglish
                29·
                4 days ago

                You’re right. It’s the requirement be granted editing privileges. Try to keep up. Or go read the rules before you whine. Or just stop playing dumb

                • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
                  91·
                  3 days ago

                  You occupy the very specific cross section of Dunning-Kreuger represented by European tech liberals

    • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
      303·
      5 days ago

      “You know you can do this thing yourself right?”

      Person does thing

      “No you are using biased language and have to use exclusively sources which are known to repeat CIA imperialist propaganda like the Hamas rape hoax on demand.”

    • 1Malayali@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      161·
      5 days ago

      True. Would be good to try that and see how it is handled

      Asking for the help of others who may see this: Could you help in listing major mass killings by capitalist states?

      Will mention ones that I can remember now:

      USAmerican regime - Kent State Uni massacre, MOVE bombing, BLM protestors murdered for protesting against the racist regime

      British colonial regime in India - Jalianwallah Bagh massacre, Wagon massacre, Massacre of tribes in hilly states
      If famines are included, then the Bengal famine, Madras famine, Travancore famine etc.

      Mass killings in areas like Ireland n all by the British capitalist regime too

      South Korean regime - Jeju island, Bodo league massacres and similar mass killings

      Mass killings by Nazi Germany

  • freshfusion@discuss.tchncs.de
    241·
    5 days ago

    Fascist and colonial states atrocities are widely documented in Wikipedia, countries that we consider capitalist probably too. I recently stumbled across Belgian atrocities in Congo reading Wikipedia by accident. It motivated me to read more about it in the future, maybe “Heart of darkness” (while not exactly historical, it still seems like a good critique. By the way is it a good novel?).

    • 1Malayali@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      225·
      5 days ago

      True.

      But there does not seem to be an equivalent page for ‘Mass killings in capitalist regimes’

      Even if it is documented, does it not show that how it is organised currently has an imbalance, likely from Anti-communist propaganda, things like red scare etc?

      So, cannoted be unbiased, right? My focus was on that. There is no unbiased source, but only ones which acknowledge biases and maybe try to ensure that the biases do not affect the quality of the source too much.

      • Squirrelanna@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        2·
        3 days ago

        I’m genuinely unsure if it’s because of propaganda or capitalist defaultism instilled in contributors due to its worldwide prevalence. Then again I suppose one could argue that defaultism was instilled by propaganda, but I’d like it more to US defaultism where it mostly stems from a large amount of online interaction in English speaking spaces being between people in the US

      • huf [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        131·
        5 days ago

        there’s a mass anti-communist killings page, but that doesnt seem to explain how capitalism is anti-communism…

      • IpsumLauren@lemmy.world
        613·
        5 days ago

        But there does not seem to be an equivalent page for ‘Mass killings in capitalist regimes’

        You can create that page. Don’t forget to cite your sources and link to them or it will be deleted.

        • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
          132·
          5 days ago

          It’s so fucking stupid that you don’t think anyone has tried this. And so fucking arrogant that you don’t even bother you check before mouthing off.

        • pinto@sh.itjust.worksBanned from community
          525·
          5 days ago

          No! You can’t expect them to behave! They need to use blogs and disrecredited historians for citations!!! FACTS ARE CIA!!!

          • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
            201·
            5 days ago

            “My sources are ‘facts’ because they say so! Your sources are ‘discredited’ because mine say so!”

            A perfectly circular chain of reasoning

          • m532@lemmy.ml
            172·
            5 days ago

            No! You can’t deny the holy scripture! The tankies are at fault when we lose, for not believing hard enough!!! CIA ARE FACTS!!!

    • NinjaGinga [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      10·
      5 days ago

      Might I recommend King Leopold’s Ghost if you want a straight up history book of the Belgian Congo. No shade against Heart of Darkness, I think that’s a worthwhile read; but reading KLG first will give you more context to appreciate HoD. Or maybe read it after, idk, up to you

  • gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org
    1·
    3 days ago

    that’s an interesting way to sum it up, yeah. do you happen to have any collections of articles that discuss mass killings under capitalist states?

    • Dreamer@lemmy.ml
      30·
      5 days ago

      That is just killings against communists. That is not equal to killings under capitalist states.

      Injustices such as the Ludlow would not fall under the former as the victims were not communists. They were workers seeking better wages and conditions under a capitalist system.

  • Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    1016·
    4 days ago

    This page in a nutshell: Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.

    Verifiability is as important as truth.

    But reliable sources are biased!

    From WP:BIASED (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources).

    Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

    (Bolding mine)

    But reliable sources are chosen by biased contributors!

    OP attached to their comic repost RSP columns.

    • Deutsche Welle: Reliability was never discussed in an RFC. Anyone complaining here of bias does not acknowledge their possibility (if they are not banned) of making an RFC on it.
    • Voice of America: Discussed on RSN a few times. The last one is pretty interesting: Here
    • Xinhua: Discussed here. ITT: It’s quite old, but Xinhua is very controversial.
    • Telesur: Discussed here around seven years ago. Quite conclusive, I would say.
    • 1Malayali@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      133·
      4 days ago

      I think you may have misunderstood point of that image.

      It not on the sources being biased(there are no unbiased sources), but noting the easily notable bias in the Wikipedia source selection, the preference for media funded by pro-capitalist regimes.

      Do you see an issue in noting how Wikipedia has this bias, and going against the notion by some that it is unbiased or neutral?

      • Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        29·
        3 days ago

        Yes, because the “easily-notable bias” is just a result of discussions done at different times to different evidence, and claiming bias is an overgeneralization.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          10·
          3 days ago

          Bias just means that you have a worldview, which everyone has whether they acknowledge it or not simply by living and existing in the real world.

                • BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml
                  3·
                  1 day ago

                  groups usually cancel bias

                  Lmao, so we’re just saying shit now, alright. Famously unbiased:

                  • The police
                  • Lynch mobs
                  • Academic institutions
                  • Think tanks
                  • The KKK
                  • The Clergy
                  • A group of children

                  I think you struggle to understand what the word “bias” means. It seems like it just short-circuits in your brain to “bad”. A group typically enforce the bias inherent to it.

                  It requires actively being aware of ones’ bias to counteract it, which is one of many reasons why Wikipedias presentation as a “neutral” source of knowledge is an issue. Because it makes doofuses like you trust it like gospel and react like fanatics to the heresy that maybe the website founded by a zionist, with a longtime issue with power-users (not to mention the infiltration of Nazis that gets brought up once in a while in a feelgood story about someone taking them on), a rule against being critical of "approved sources investegation making use of primary sources, an arbitrary approach as to how trustworthy a source is (the main judgement of which seems to be “do they reinforce state dept. talking points?”); well, it might have some issues.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  8·
                  3 days ago

                  Groups do not cancel bias. Wikipedia is overwhelmingly western, which becomes a western bias. Groups reinforce bias.

  • MrShankles@reddthat.com
    1314·
    4 days ago

    Idk, I’ve learned a tremendous amount about things outside my culture… because of wikipedia. Don’t let perfection be the enemy of good?

    Edit: I apologize that my comment derailed from the conversation of Wikipedia having inherent and abundant Western bias… the fact that VOA is considered reputable is enough to turn heads. What I guess I was trying to say is that I wouldn’t want people to ignore a good resource for information because of that… but it is also very important to point out and criticize their bias, if true neutrality is a Wikipedia “goal”

    I apologize again. I would delete my comments, but I think it’s important to own up to my own errors and have a record of what was said. Maybe others will learn from my misinterpretation of the conversation being presented, and my initial emotional responses

    • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
      164·
      4 days ago

      Did you? Or did you read a tremendous amount of propaganda and selective truths, thinking you were getting informed?

      Virtually all of the information you are reading is written by Western white men who have a very specific agenda. And the sources allowed are Western sources.

      • MrShankles@reddthat.com
        43·
        4 days ago

        Nobody escapes propaganda. Learning and trying to understand your own bias is the best you can do. Unless you have a source for perfect objective truth that you’d like to share?

        • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
          15·
          4 days ago

          You can escape propaganda by getting informed by multiple perspectives.

          Not by reading a single source which claims to represent multiple perspectives but actually completely reframes reality to sell you a single perspective.

          Wikipedia is great for any exact sciences. History and politics related information is extremely selective and has a Western agenda attached.

          Look at this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AverroesThey put his Latin name as the title and his picture is a painting in an Italian church. Now read who he was. Does the framing match?

          • MrShankles@reddthat.com
            6·
            4 days ago

            I agree, multiple perspectives is absolutely key and using any one source for history or politics will be problematic. Wikipedia is absolutely bias with Western ideology, but it’s not exactly a propaganda machine. I always use it like you’re taught in school, that Wikipedia is not a source. Depending on how deeply you would like to learn about a subject, it’s a great start to finding sources. Unfortunately biased with Western bullshit, absolutely, as is everything coming out the west

            I guess I am derailing the conversation if we’re just talking about and calling out Wiki’s Western bias. I would also hate for people to think it’s automatically not informative because of it’s bias… cause everything has one. Multiple sources and viewpoints, like you said, is the way to go

    • 1Malayali@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      163·
      4 days ago

      Idk, why should this issue be seen as good?

      And what is your culture? Is Wikipedia good for it?

      • MrShankles@reddthat.com
        79·
        4 days ago

        It’s not? Being informed is always positive, and it’s always unfortunate that bias exists. I’d rather learn and try to understand my own bias, as opposed to being ignorant and having bias anyway

        Do you have a tool that is just as accessible as wiki, but perfectly objective? Or are you throwing the baby out with the bath-water? Knowledge is good for any culture, and bias is a motherfucker to us all. Your critique isn’t unwarranted, but it does flirt with anti-intellectualism

        • 1Malayali@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          15·
          4 days ago

          Being informed of the bias is also positive

          No one mentioned anything about throwing the bathwater, but only hinted at the bias.

          Are you trying to villainise and portray it as anti-intellectualism?
          Are you thinking that the source you use is unbiased and trying to derial convos that hint at how it is not unbiased?

          Noting the bias is a good thing and trying to shut down the convoys on that is a bigger mf to all of us.

          Your concerns isn’t unwarranted, but it does flirt with strawmanning and derailing the convo.

        • BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml
          7·
          4 days ago

          “Being informed is positive” is not what is being argued against, and you know it. This is disingenuous and poor rhetorics.

          Do you have a tool that is just as accessible as wiki, but perfectly objective? Or are you throwing the baby out with the bath-water?

          More poor rhetorics. If youre not interested in actual discussion, why engage with someone acting in clear, good faith? Its pretty clear that the argument is that the issue with Wikipedia is that it presents itself as unbiased, while in fact being heavily biased. The issue is not the presence of bias itself.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        4 days ago

        What exactly is your issue with Wikipedia?

        It’s clear from the content of that article that they are willing to include information on capitalism’s role in atrocities, and cite anticapitalist sources. The “anticommuniat mass killings” article even shows they are willing to do pro-communist listicles. It’s clear to me that the wikipedia article creation and editing process itself does not prevent creating well-sourced pro-communist articles. Are you complaining that the users on wikipedia choose to organize the information in a way that’s more aligned with capitalist viewpoints? If so, yes, of course-- most people in the english-speaking world are capitalists, and will view issues in that light. They simply outnumber you and so it is more likely they will make an article. But there is nothing stopping you from making articles of your own or improving existing articles to include your perspective. If you want Wikipedia to be more accurate and think it’s missing info or organized incorrectly, you are free to edit it yourself. It seems really weird to blame Wikipedia for this when the issue is (1) inherent to being a platform filled with user-generated content and (2) something you are in a good position to solve if you chose to participate.