downvoted for lack of evidence/examples.
Then there's this:
> Most of Scottish Wikipedia Written By American in Mangled English
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wiki...
Some examples of the writing here: https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1298579510581960705
And finally, I remember some translated wikipedia language was mostly written by like 10 people and went kind of nuts, but I can't find a link.
This stuff is like @tptacek bait -- I heard of these by reading his twitter.
Wikipedia can't disclaim the information on wikipedia.org if they want to be a credible organization.
Other editors get in her way, but that’s still in good faith. Not exactly a situation that backs up that commenter’s point, for sure.
The second isn't politically motivated, but simple vandalism.
> actual disinformation in a concerted effort especially on politically charged topics
The only thing that can be concluded is that you apparently believe the wikipedia page of every US politician is somehow anomalous. It tells us nothing.
one can argue, that if MSM spreads disinfo what can you expect from wikipedians, but the problem is their "power editors" and admins are a small clique with very particular political bias, it's just another echo chamber
You didn't really respond to the assertion that all American politicians are right-wing, but it's true. We have a "blood and soil" far right party and a "diverse corporate oligopoly" center-right party.
"Two people repeating it on HN comments" != "it's true".
It really boils down to: What's your standard of reference? You seem to want to use Europe (I assume) as the standard for defining left and right in US politics. Why do you consider that a reasonable thing to do?
And even if you consider it a reasonable thing, why Europe? Why not Asia? Or the Middle East? Or Africa? Or the world as a whole?
Or why not, you know, use the US as the standard for judging what left and right are in US politics?
Right up until politics, crime rates, infrastructure, public policy, or really any matter of consequence is discussed, at which point we transform back into a Western European nation.
There must be a word to describe this type of dualist rhetoric but I can't quite put my finger on it. Also, those people complaining about the Democrat or Republican party being too right wing tend to be Americans who know nothing about right wing political parties in Europe. Yes, left wing parties in a multi-party system are much more radical in Europe, but so are right wing parties. What these people want is the stability and institutional weight of a party in the two-party system but the radicalism of a European left-wing party.
Now, I agree that the Middle East is not where the standard of reference should be, but it's the area that I'm pretty sure of how we compare. Others are more tricky.
Central and South America? There are countries there that we are clearly to the right of, but also some that we align somewhat with. I don't recall whether there are currently any right-wing dictatorships there.
Asia? We could be to the left of some countries there. I don't have a good idea of how to describe where China is right now - are they right or left? They kind of have elements of both. At least some parties in India are to the right of the US. I don't have a good feel for Africa, though I'd bet that in at least some countries, some parties are to the right of the US.
So... it's complicated. I think I can make a... a "case" might be overstating it, but at least a handwaving argument that if you move the focus off of Europe, then US political parties are less clearly right-wing. But an actual case? That would take something like a worldwide ranking of political parties on a left-right axis, which is data that I freely admit that I do not have.
When it is just the truth, you don't need to spin it to have a certain kind of impact. The impact exists even when you view things impassively, without much care one way or the other.