There probably are some Wikipedia articles you could link to.
Edit: just a few examples
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_concentration_camps
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Enslaved_Af...
100 years of massacring Indigenous Australians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenou...
Australians prefer ignorance over acknowledgement, generally. Its not something we should be proud about .. in fact, there is a lot of shame in being an Australian with NO CLUE about the civilization that was swept away to make way for White Australia. Australia's first inhabitants were far more advanced than we care to admit.
EDIT: some things all Australians should know about the first people:
* They have been on the continent for at least 65,000 years * The current biosphere is a result of their management of the land and wildlife for the duration of those 65,000 years * They used cryptographic techniques to keep the peace between tribes * They have the oldest confirmed oral history of any human society, ever - scientifically proven to stretch back 40,000 years. (We in the west can't keep our oral traditions sane for 100 years, by comparison..) * They had a version of the Hippocratic Oath long before European medicine * Their medical culture had an understanding of antibiotic and antiseptic materials in their environment and were using them to great effect at a time when European medicine still believed in miasma theory
.. and there is much, much more. Alas, the hubris around what has been done to the First Nation people (see for example White Australia policies continuing into the 1980's... forced castrations... forced re-settlement of children... etc.) has resulted in a general ignorance of the situation among current Australian culture...
[1] https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-did-the-British-empire...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#East_India_Comp...
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrigation_in_India#History
This is true, but perhaps in a way you weren't anticipating; this point was made decades ago by Herbert Marcuse in response to people attempting to compare, for instance, Nazi death tolls with Soviet ones. This mode of argumentation reduces concrete matters of policy and motivation (quality) into mere numbers to be thrown about (quantity). But authoritarianism is not a quantitative matter - a nation with harsh laws under which only few are convicted is still an authoritarian nation.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atroci...
Consequently, it feels a bit unfair to put this on Wikipedia editors. Kinda like blaming a random restaurant manager for forcing waiters to rely on tips. Yes, if they have enough profits, they can pay people more and fix a small part of the problem. The general issue remains systemic though.
Systemic yet oddly restricted to a particular area.
(For example, even without government interference, you would expect “Taiwan” to have different first-sentence descriptions in the Chinese–Simplified, Chinese–Traditional, and English Wikipedias.)
I agree with your sentiment, but that's not the best example. There is one Chinese Wikipedia, and articles are machine-transliterated between simplified and traditional forms (plus a few more forms using region-specific vocabulary).
Can you link some specific examples?
En: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_... Ru: none, lol
En: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru... Ru: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE...
En: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War Ru: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83...
For several years they vandalized Kievan Rus' page (in Ru segment) renaming it to Ancient Rus'. For some reason they stopped doing it now , but all changes are still in history. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81...
En: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 Ru: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Катастрофа_Boeing_777_в_Донецк...
Basically any mention of unfavorable or outright bad mention about current country of a dictator or about any preceding country from which they claim inheritance is censored or obfuscated or buried in a flood of "alternative" opinions.
2) So, Russia and USA & Britain are involved in some recent and ongoing armed conflicts (all of them near Russian borders, I'd note). There's some difference in coverage of said conflicts between Russian and English Wikipedias, sure (though I skimmed the linked articles and didn't immediately notice blatant censorship on either side). And you cite that as Russians rewriting "all political and history pages"? Seriously?
3) The "lol" one is the coolest. "Ukrainian armed forces: 232,000 … 15,000 defected to Russia." Didn't see the figure before. If Russian Wikipedia was a worthy piece of pro-Russian propaganda, of course it would also have this figure in a prominent box. Alas, Russian Wikipedia is worse than English one at almost anything, including pro-Russian propaganda.
You can read more about the philosophical notion of liberalism and its critics at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
This is a "wikipedia is completely western and whiggish" critique.