568
Capitalist propaganda is effective (lemmy.ml)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/socialism@lemmy.ml
109 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 3 months ago (21 children)

that's a fascinating take; what makes you believe this?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (19 children)

    I don't want to be the guy arguing on the Internet, but just read the Wikipedia article on communism here. When the Russian people toppled their last monarch, they never actually went full communism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (18 children)

    Wikipedia

    this explains a lot about why you believe this.

    would you still believe wikipedia if i shared freedom of information act releases that directly contradict wikipedia? (the releases also contradict npr, cnn, cbs, bbc, etc.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 3 months ago (15 children)

    If you think Wikipedia is biased, then I have nothing further to say to you. Enjoy OAN, News Max, Fox News, and all that other right wing horse shit. Wikipedia is community consensus. It's the only place I get my "news" from.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    Wikipedia is biased by nature as a secondary source, just towards the political paradigm so you don't recognize it as easily. In fact, here's a Wikipedia page you might want to check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

    Hey does ProleWiki have a page talking about its own issues? Weird how "evil" and "biased" wikipedia will explictly tell you about possible issues and its own history without issue, but ProleWiki won't.

    But sure, wikipedia is the dishonest one. Lemme go see how objective ProleWiki is on topics it dislikes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I wouldn't know, I've barely used it.

    Just checked and it doesn't seem to, but considering it's a much smaller and newer project than Wikipedia that would make sense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Fair enough. Thank you for responding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Sure. Just took a look at your edit though, and I feel like holding ProleWiki and Wikipedia to the same standards is a bit absurd, especially cause there aren't people who go around using it as their main source of news like how boaratio is doing to wikipedia. Since ProleWiki is so much smaller, it would only make sense that the articles there are lower quality, there aren't as many of them, and they have been less reviewed, no?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    yes, wikipedia is community consensus and community consensus once was that iraq had wmd's -- the foia proved otherwise. consensus isn't truth; it's just the most popular opinion at the time.

    the foia gives you what the us government tries to hide. it is literally the us government itself being legally forced to share its secrets to the american public because of a law that was passed decades before the us gov't became fully captured by corporate interests and the epstein class.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    community consensus once was that iraq had wmd’s

    It really wasn't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    here's wikipedia's consensus still framing the government's wmd claims as 'assertions' while uncritically repeating them years after the iraqi invasion: https://wayback.qa-archive-it.org/all/20080911173302/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

    The foia showed the government had doubts before the invasion -- wikipedia didn't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Okay..?

    Just because wiki says that doesn't mean that was the community consensus, millions of people protested that war. In my country it is still the largest protest in history.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago*

    We're not discussing the general public's consensus.

    We're discussing Wikipedia's consensus driven decision process and why it makes Wikipedia an unreliable source.

    Wikipedia said that there was consensus and anyone w eyes and ears knew that was bullshit -- as you've pointed out -- but people still want to use Wikipedia as a source anyways.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)