Larry Sanger accused the CIA and it’s allies of editing articles for years to spread propaganda

There’s no way this porky [redacted] didn’t know this all along, and/or wasn’t complicit. It’s just that now he decides admitting it is expedient for furthering whatever purpose he has for admitting it.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    vor 2 Tagen

    On Gaza, Sanger said Wikipedia’s coverage is “clearly very one-sided,” in favor of Palestinians, and backed founder Jimmy Wales’s intervention on the “Gaza genocide” article, where Wales argued the introduction should contain more of the Israeli perspective.

    Fuck you, twat.

  • ジン@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    vor 2 Tagen

    Where one might find a non-TLAcompromised Wikipedia-alt if one were so inclined? >.>

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      vor 2 Tagen

      Presumably none. Wikis thrive on public contributions and CIA agents can make accounts same as anyone else. If it’s not compromised it’s because it’s too small to be worth it.

      But the same crowd sourcing that makes it impossible to stop contributions also means anything that seems too biased might get caught and reverted.

      So, it probably happens, but it’s also probably not all that important. This guy is simultaneously claiming the CIA has compromised the site and that it’s too unfriendly to Israel. Which seems like the sort of bias the CIA wouldn’t want if they really had much control.

    • naught101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      vor 2 Tagen

      This is one of the dudes who started it.

      I suspect the answer is no, sound like some conspiracy theory shit.

  • EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    vor 2 Tagen

    We knew that when they took down pages related to recent countries in recent wars. It’s not surprising to have it confirmed that the people who you think are behind these policies actually are.

  • gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    vor 2 Tagen

    everybody knows that you can’t trust wikipedia for topics where a third-party might profit from manipulating what’s written in the article, such as a company brand might remove criticism from its page. this is basic knowledge i think (or at least i hope)