Michael Dorosh
der Spieß des Forums
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2004
- Messages
- 15,733
- Reaction score
- 2,765
- Location
- Calgary, AB
- First name
- Michael
- Country
You were stating a belief that Wikipedia is apolitical and "fact-based", I was pointing out an example in which facts are secondary in importance to the ideology of the editorial policy makers. It's an extreme example, but a useful one that not just anybody can add 'facts' to Wikipedia and have their edits stand unchallenged. If you don't think there are editorial biases there, look at the talk page of any political event - the article on the Capitol Hill riot has 13 pages and counting of commentary, which is really a battleground of people trying to get their interpretations of the "facts" into the record. See the very first section on this archived talk page for a great example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol/Archive_9This went from Baseball to Trans...
It's not just political, though, and those kind of dogfights go on even in the historical articles. See the talk page for the 12th SS Panzer Division, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:12th_SS_Panzer_Division_Hitlerjugend where there are arguments over historical 'facts' such as the war crimes of the division, their 'crack' status, etc. One person's fact is often another person's propaganda.