But that is unavoidable for articles written by men, rather than some truly neutral artificial intelligence.
My gripe is that I find that Wikipedia does not acknowledge the issues enough, and seems to mostly assert that it is fairly neutral.
But that is unavoidable for articles written by men, rather than some truly neutral artificial intelligence.
My gripe is that I find that Wikipedia does not acknowledge the issues enough, and seems to mostly assert that it is fairly neutral.
This is likely exacerbated by the fact that there are very few "reputable" right-wing English language sources that can be cited on Wikipedia. Similarly, sources from the Middle-East or Russia, which are less likely to be cited, would probably take a less charitable view as well.
English language Wikipedia of course has a disproportional number of editors from the U.S.A. and most of them have a particular side in this culture war.
But it touches upon another issue of All voices must be repræsented, proportional to their weight.. — does this mean all voices currently on the planet? all voices that have ever been on the planet? or only English voices on the English-language Wikipedia?
In particular, I find it somewhat odd that, for instance, English-language Wikipedia will speak of the “critical consensus” surrounding a Japanese work of fiction, using only English-language reviews thereof, while there are probably more Japanese-language reviews and fans of the work, and the critical perception is often very different in different cultures, but English-language Wikipedia very often speaks of “critical consensus” for what should be called “Anglo-Saxon critical consensus”, and dare I say that it is often not even that, but chiefly a U.S.A. consensus.
It's much worse than that. The vast majority of sources that would potentially provide alternative [and valid, but right leaning] perspectives on basically any subject are effectively blacklisted as unreliable by somewhat of a cabal of heavily left leaning regular editors. Go to any talk page on any politically controversial subject and you'll see how the seasoned editors are almost all extremely left leaning and easily overwhelm anyone asking for a more neutral representation of facts. And let's not pretend that this has anything to do with "quality" or "factual reporting" when you'll find sources like Vox and Salon on some of these pages.
It's self reinforcing, in that such heavy editorial bias discourages neutral and right leaning people from making edits that they then have to defend publicly against virtual extremists.
It's pure cultural warfare. And in typical subversive fashion, they all play dumb and dance around the fact that the only approved sources are extremely biased towards their side.
In most of the world, “liberal” does not mean “left”; it means capitalism.
It is a common sentiment of the European that both what the U.S.A. calls “left” and “right” is rather “right” in his eyes, with both he Democratic, and Republican Parties espousing more right wing fiscal policies than many of the most right wing European parties would dream to tender.
The U.S.A.-man might look at it from a perspective of what he calls “right” vs. “left” in terms of neutrality, but from where I stand it is mostly an issue of “U.S.A. culture” vs. “global perspective”, as even articles that pertain to events in specific countries on English-Language Wikipeia seem to very often be analysed from what is clearly a U.S.A. cultural perspective.
I really don't think europeans think the left in american are really "right". Europe is not further left than the american left.
Grrr, what does european even mean. It's like 40 different governments and countries. All with different cultures.
“liberal” very much means capitalism in most European political discourse or really most places outside of the -U.S.A.
Consider that even on Wikipedia, where non-U.S.A. politics is discussed, the term is typically so used:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Party_for_Freedom_a...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Democratic_Party_(Germany...
> I really don't think europeans think the left in american are really "right". Europe is not further left than the american left.
It is quite a common sentiment one hears from European that from their perspective all U.S.A. politics is right wing.
Consider that there are very few European countries where even the most right wing parties would ever suggest such a system as at-will employment, which is pervasive throughout the U.S.A., and which neither party has shown any desire to end. — it is really seen as quite dystopian from a European perspective.
To say that Europe is not further left is a very strange claim. You will find no European country, or many developed countries at all, with the following, which are common to universal in the U.S.A.:
- The right of employers to terminate without first seeking approval from an employment court or similar organ
- A lack of universal healthcare
- A lack of universal access to higher education
- The legal allowance of advertising drugs
- Non-defaultable student loans
- Very low minimum wages
- Waivability of refund rights
Such things are generally considered extremely capitalist in most developed nations, but are quite normal in the U.S.A..
> Grrr, what does european even mean. It's like 40 different governments and countries. All with different cultures.
And you will find that in each and every one of them healthcare is a universal right, at will employment does not exist, and drugs cannot be advertised, and probably many more of what I listed.
It is not that Europe is so culturally homogeneous, it is that the U.S.A. is very exceptional in how capitalist it is. You will also not find most of these things in, say, Canada, or Australia, or any other developed nations. — the U.S.A. is rather unique in how much it indulges the big man at the expense of the little man, and neither party seems particularly interested in implementing changes that would bring it to a similar balance that the rest of the developed world enjoys.
How about the term 'neoliberal'?
« Liberal » means economic liberalism in pretty much all of continental Europe.
Frankness be, it makes one wonder how one country can so often develop different political terminology from the standard in about the entire world. A similar situation is that in the U.S.A., blue has become the color of left wing politics, and red for right wing politics, a fairly recent symbolism dating back less than two decades, whereas for centuries in the entire world it has been opposite.
How could U.S.A. news stations possibly have decided upon this? it seems to me that the news editors that approved this must have been largely ignorant of this symbolism when they decided to go against the rest of the world here, and so was the population, which must mean that they weren't aware that dating to the French revolution, the left has flown red, and the right has flown blue.
The cold war is a fairly recent event; surely they noticed that the communists took red as their color of choice?
Well, « blue » as a political signifier very much started on the left, being associated to American and French Republicans (in the true sense of the word, not the GOP). The right wing being « white », ie. monarchist. Coincidentally that meaning also found posterity in the Russian Revolution as the colour of the Tsarist regime also happened to be white (possibly in imitation of the French, but religious reasons also play into it).
As far as I'm aware, the US under a « swap » of sorts as the Northern and Southern wings of the Democratic and Republican parties broke up and reorganized.
How do you figure this?
The association of left with red, and blue with right, dates from the French revolution, as the three estates of French society each had a color: the commoners had red, and the nobility had blue.
The monarchists at the times of the French revolution always flew blue, and the republicans that wished to abolish it flew red.
> As far as I'm aware, the US under a « swap » of sorts as the Northern and Southern wings of the Democratic and Republican parties broke up and reorganized.
That is not the origin of the colors in U.S.A. politics; the origin is that during the Bush v. Gore election, most major U.S.A. news stations, either by coincidence of agreement, congruated on coloring the Republican Party with red, and the Democrat Party with blue, and it remained so ever thereafter.
That they chose to do so, to me, indicates a certain ignorance of global politics,̧ as nearly every capitalist party internationally incorporates a great deal of blue in it's designs, and every socialist party a great deal of red.
That's just... false. The monarchists universally flew white banners. The Republicans were literally known as the Blues.