With initial efforts aimed at swinging upcoming German elections and discrediting Ukraine, Russia's "Doppelganger" influence operations have expanded to the BlueSky social media platform. It took the Russians a while to get around to it, but they've finally begun running their disinformation operations on social media platform BlueSky. On January 17,…
Wikipedia, according to itself, isn’t a reliable source when it comes to such internationally hot topics. It’s primarily written by western young men who are mostly exposed exclusively to western media, and the articles they write are referenced by this same media. If you wanna read a bit more on this, I did a writeup some weeks ago about this very topic, sourcing my information from wikipedia itself.
With this I don’t mean to say that the accusations you’re showing are false, I honestly don’t have enough information to confirm or deny it, but in times of war information is a powerful tool and media from both sides won’t doubt to distort information to benefit their own countries.
They literally cite their sources. They always cite their sources. Just dismissing it as “Wikipedia is written by Westerners” pretends that isn’t true. And I know you’re not that stupid.
Could you please do me the favour and read my writeup before responding like that? I addressed what you’re saying.
Wikipedia itself has an article on its own bias, and an article on which sources the wiki editors consider reliable. Feel free to read my writeup for extended info on that.
Is your writeup about that specific article? Because if not, it’s irrelevant. You can judge whether the source is reliable by going there, which you are apparently unwilling to do because you’ve already decided it’s too biased.
Also, there are Wikipedia editors from all over the world. I think you know that too.
Seems like your real problem is they’re being big meanies to Russia which only has the best intentions for Ukrainians and would never commit any war crimes.
You can just say you don’t care to read about the intrinsic biases in wikipedia in specific topics and that you’ll keep uncritically using it.
Wikipedia ITSELF acknowledges that the vast majority of articles, especially those written in “western” languages, are edited primarily by western men. I’m not making shit up, Wikipedia literally talks about it in a meta-article about bias in wikipedia.
Russia is a capitalist regime on a downwards spiral to fascism, and it’s perfectly capable of committing war crimes, it’s currently ongoing in increasing oppression of its own women and LGTBQ. That doesn’t mean we should take Wikipedia’s word during war time for granted. Go through the sources of the article and tell me how many non-western or non-Ukrainian ones are used. I’ve seen an article from the Russian oppositional media “Meduza” but I unfortunately can’t read Russian so I can’t really tell what it says. Plenty of other reference from outright US/Ukraine propaganda outlets such as the “conflict observatory”, a US “NGO” receiving money from the NED; or such as Ukrainian media, which obviously have a stake in this topic.
Please, give my writeup a chance, and if you have anything to comment on it, feel free to let me know
I do not need to read your writeup to know that this information comes from sources other than Wikipedia. It doesn’t matter what it acknowledges about “the vast majority of articles,” because any one article, this one included, can be an exception.
How do you not know about Google Translate at this point? Or is that full of “Western bias” too?
What source would you even trust?
My point is that there aren’t many sources to trust for now, not from one side and not from the other, because of the ongoing conflict and information war. You can’t trust the New York Times in the same way you probably wouldn’t trust Russia Today.
If you saw a collectively edited article related to the Ukrainian War, edited primarily by Russian men, using Russian sources (whether state or private), would you trust it? Would you trust a collectively edited article on Taiwan edited primarily by Chinese men using primarily Chinese sources (whether state or private)? If the answer is yes I’ll shut up, if the answer is no, then why do you do it with Wikipedia?
That’s not an answer- who do you trust on this subject? Or is everyone lying? Because it’s either true or it isn’t.
I don’t trust anyone, surely everyone is lying. Both sides have a very strong interest on propagating opposite points of view. Framing Russia as the saviours of the Russian population in Crimea and Donetsk against Ukronazis is very beneficial to Russia, framing Russia as a war criminal country kidnapping children is very beneficial to NATO.
Remember Nayirah’s testimony? Remember the WMDs in Iraq?