
Wikipedia became a battleground for racial justice - edward
https://slate.com/technology/2020/06/wikipedia-george-floyd-neutrality.html
======
Thorentis
Unsurprisingly, this doesn't seem to be a left vs. right issue but a far left
vs. centre issue.

None of the edit suggestions or controversies were racist or biased. It is
clear that ardent supporters of the BLM movement simply want to shape the
historical record in the way they want to. And Wikipedia will probably side
with them.

How is mentioning Floyd's past criminal record on his biographical page (not
even on the "Killing of..." page) a detraction from his death? Are we just
going to edit Wikipedia to remove anything that detracts from people we
idolise? Wikipedia should present the facts (all of them) and that is it. If
the facts detract, then maybe there's a reason for that. That doesn't change
the fact that they are facts.

~~~
htfu
If you look at the linked talk page almost all votes are yes, include. It is
currently included. You appear to be railing not against what is, but against
an unrealized possibility which was in fact stopped by the very hive-mind you
falsely assume would push, or at least accept it.

Call me slanted all you want, but this, the current state of comments here,
that's what an agenda looks like.

~~~
Thorentis
I was basing my comments on the linked Slate article.

~~~
htfu
And the link I referred to is in that article.

------
sam_goody
This morning, I chanced upon the wiki page for "George Floyd protests".

I consider myself more liberal than many, and yet I was struck by the obvious
left slant of that page.

Not that it has inaccuracies, but its selection of facts and how they are
presented, are definitely not neutral. From the header ("protests" or
"riots"?) to the prevalence ("George Floyd protests in Minnesota"[0] and
"George Floyd protests"[1], etc[2], [3], [4], [5] ...) to the descriptions and
topics....

IMO such bias erodes their trust, and the more centrist will have to choose
between one echo chamber and another and decide their facts by emotion.

Unfortunately, I am beginning to feel that the more "woke" a subject is, the
less likely the facts will be presented fairly.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Twin_Cities_riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Twin_Cities_riots)
[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd)
[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd)
[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_in_the_United_States)
[5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_outside_the_United_States)

~~~
mdpye
I'm not sure I understand your point. By questioning the choice of "protests"
vs "riots", are you suggesting that the actions taken by a minority of those
participating should be used as the header for the whole article? Because that
would seem to be a much more biased way to record the events.

~~~
sam_goody
Per that one example.

The URL of the article being linked to was
"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Twin_Cities_riots"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Twin_Cities_riots")
(it has now been changed).

Compare the two: "Twin Cities whatever" used in the URL is a lot less
political than "Goerge Floyd whatever". And the "riots" used in the URL is
obviously something people were searching Google for.

Wikipedia could have used the more conservative name, and acknowledged that
"the protests, also known as the "George Floyd Riots" (as is obvious from the
URL)....

Don't get fixated on that example though - the whole article reads like it was
written by the press team of a large corporation with a narrative to sell.

~~~
htfu
The current name of the article is "George Floyd protests in Minnesota", and
first paragraph contains "The course of events in Minnesota has also been
referred to as the Minneapolis riots".

I disagree riots is a more conservative name - this would imply an article
solely about the riots, necessiting an additional article about the protests,
one which, being written in a way as to minimize overlap, would probably be
accused of downplaying the very much existing riots. Or at the very least
balkanize coverage.

------
trabant00
Unfortunately it's been years since I can trust any wikipedia article on
anything political or social related. Sad thing is these issues now taint
topics like games, movies, software. Not being from US makes it even harder to
swallow.

I guess it's unavoidable though. Having your ideological group stand on such a
popular resource is incredibly powerful propaganda. It's like having millions
of dollars lying in the street, you can't expect people not to touch it.

~~~
jl2718
I’m of the opinion that it’s not just ‘like’ money. It is money. Firstly,
there are people from ‘community organizations’ that get paid to AstroTurf as
their full time job. Secondly, those organizations wouldn’t get funding in the
first place if some big company didn’t somehow depend on their political
action to maintain their profits.

------
tompagenet2
I get that Jimmy Wales acted questionably towards Larry Sanger, but I'm always
a little saddened that Sanger has become a rent-a-quote to criticise something
truly amazing that he helped to create. Wikipedia is for all its flaws a
remarkable achievement.

~~~
adventured
Sanger, from what I've read of what he has been saying, doesn't appear to deny
the remarkable achivement of Wikipedia. He's arguing it is increasingly losing
a sense of - a culture of - neutrality that helped to make Wikipedia possible.

------
Darmody
Maybe Wikipedia shouldn't allow certain articles to be added/edited until
things cool off a bit. Writing history out of anger is probably not the best
idea.

~~~
playpause
They do that. Articles are often locked to a certain level (e.g. closed for
edits from new users, or even all users) for a certain period of time if they
relate to a controversial topic or unfolding news event.

------
cannedslime
Wikipedia has sadly been in this state of subversion for years. Eventually you
get a mental bullshit-filter, just like you easily train yourself to ignore
ads online etc.

~~~
raxxorrax
Sadly yes and it is very counter productive from my perspective. It is no
secret that there are some groups that just blame people on their skin color
or sex or whatever else. They have been there since the dawn of the internet.
But recently they seem to be holding a lot of people in some kind of mental
prison.

I wouldn't even want to read an article about Floyd because it won't net me
believable information. I will just say that he was a victim of state
violence. That is more severe than violence between any groups and everyone in
a society is responsible to a degree and that social media or the internet in
general is a bad place for reverence.

------
sradman
That is an unexpectedly balanced and informative piece from Slate. There are
two main assumptions underlying progressive politics: systemic oppression and
exploitation. Social Justice Activism takes these assumptions to be true by
default. Anti-capitalist Black Bloc anarchists, for instance, take any
opportunity to destroy corporate property as a positive move to eliminate
economic exploitation. They don’t tend to revisit their assumptions.

Bypassing due process and the presumption of innocence does not promote
justice. Perhaps news stories should include subscription links to be notified
of the key due process events associated with the criminal investigation.

I would hope that thoughtful protest could be patiently delayed until due
process is complete.

------
dmonitor
I don’t think the ambiguity of the notability requirement should be used as a
critique of the neutrality policy.

------
RickJWagner
For the love of all this good, please do not let the poison of political
correctness infect Wikipedia.

~~~
nathanaldensr
You think Wikipedia isn't already poisoned? I have sad news for you, my
friend...

------
historyremade
Pikiwedia sounds better than Wikipedia.

