Listen man, even in the shitty college I went to we weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because it’s often laced with misinformation and has no standards for its citations.
Also when you’re trying to argue against a genocide being CIA propaganda, you cannot site literally the lowest effort citation that the CIA could ever hope for if they wanted to spread propaganda for any given thing.
Listen man, even in the shitty college I went to we weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because it’s often laced with misinformation and has no standards for its citations.
Listen man, even in the very good college that I went to, everyone starts at Wikipedia and then uses it’s sources since if they’re good sources then they’ll be a helpful jumping off point.
Also when you’re trying to argue against a genocide being CIA propaganda, you cannot site literally the lowest effort citation that the CIA could ever hope for if they wanted to spread propaganda for any given thing.
Peer reviewed journal articles are not the lowest effort citation that the CIA could manipulate. Again, the wiki article has numerous sources (which I’ve read through), do you have any sources to contradict the information that they contain?
You do realize that… The peer review process is not, inherently, robust, right?
There’s a reason different publication venues have different levels of prestige. Nature and Science? Very prestigious. The Lancet? Very prestigious. NeurIPS? Very prestigious. The Journal of Genocide Research? Not so prestigious.
That article is a masterclass in laundering false information to make propaganda palatable to impressionable people. From the very first paragraph it regurgitates false information. The funny thing is that the claim that more than one million Uyghers are interned does have a source, but they didn’t specify it. Probably because the source’s reliability has been dismantled and they think leaving it out is less blatant. Garbage journalistic standards either way, and obvious dishonest propagandizing. For the rest of the article, we already know the media spread misinformation about Xinjiang. Compiling it in a Wikipedia article does not make it any more legitimate or convincing.
They are completely different and this is a dumbass comment.
Just because a massive organization made up of millions of people lied once doesn’t mean everything else they ever say is a lie. That’s dumbass child level reasoning. Present sourced evidence that contradicts the sourced infromation in the wikipedia article or don’t bother commenting.
Perhaps you’re unaware of many of the US’s atrocities, because many are hidden or distorted through the above methods. Nobody lies like the imperial core propaganda machine.
a few of the journal articles, though many of the reports from human rights groups, and the sheer volume of independent reports from different new outlets (big and small) is also rather compelling (as well as bellingcat’s reporting):
Is there any reason to think “prolewiki” is more reliable than wikipedia?
ProleWiki is a collaborative Marxist-Leninist project aiming to build an anti-imperialist communist encyclopedia with information on current events, communist parties worldwide, countries, as well as hosting a library of texts important to the international communist movement.
Seems like it’s openly biased. And while I can appreciate the honesty, I’m not sure how it can be viewed as reliable.
Wikipedia is extremely unreliable and biased, and not even on political topics, even linguistical and scientific articles are prone to huge issues. (see: Scottish Gaelic) If you wish to call prolewiki as biased, I must tell you that wikipedia is even worse, it just has a more liberal bias. Follow their sources and you will see. ProleWiki discloses the bias up front, and has an squad of source patrollers who make sure when a claim is made, it is grounded in reality that can be sourced. Sure, there aren’t that many articles on it yet, but we strive to set a high standard because the slightest weak link in the project will be used by people like yourself to discredit us.
Because it’s the wiki of the people instead of the wiki of bourgeoisie interests, why the fuck else
Communistic propaganda
lol, and you think the slop you’ve seen your entire life has been absolutely unbiased?
We do analyze matters though the lens of marxism-lenninism, we make sure our sources and research is decent, and if that’s “communist propaganda” to you well, your loss lmao.
But I have a hard time to take criticism from people who believe Adrian Zenz on anything
But I have a hard time to take criticism from people who believe Adrian Zenz on anything
That wasn’t me though, I just barged into this conversation to talk about our perceptions and definitions of truth in these online encyclopedias more so than about Uyghurs.
Personally, I’m not quite sold on the Uyghur narrative on either side but I also haven’t looked into it a lot.
lol, and you think the slop you’ve seen your entire life has been absolutely unbiased?
Yeah, nothing is (which includes Marxist-Leninism), but I unfortunately don’t have the time and resources to not trust something.
Well, You absolutely can, since it actually saves you time. Otherwise you’d go and listen to Fox News slop as well
Uyghur narrative
There really isn’t much information even provided by the proponents of the genocide theory, for example their supposed police database leak that was going to be irrefutable evidence… it was fake. It had AI pictures and pictures of public figures. They did some political circus for a while, and then it just kind of died down, we don’t even have much to debunk because their claims were political circus aimed at the western people. If they can provide proper evidence, then I’ll take time to investigate properly.
Meanwhile there is an actual genocide of Muslims currently underway and so far so good western media seems to be on-board, so I have a hard time to believe them
Note, I am actually Iranian myself. If there is a Muslim genocide underway I’m inclined to go figure it out
Who do I believe, a random smug lemmier, or a well sourced wikipedia article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
Listen man, even in the shitty college I went to we weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because it’s often laced with misinformation and has no standards for its citations.
Also when you’re trying to argue against a genocide being CIA propaganda, you cannot site literally the lowest effort citation that the CIA could ever hope for if they wanted to spread propaganda for any given thing.
Still a better source then random people on lemmy misrepresenting sources like it proves their point.
Listen man, even in the very good college that I went to, everyone starts at Wikipedia and then uses it’s sources since if they’re good sources then they’ll be a helpful jumping off point.
Peer reviewed journal articles are not the lowest effort citation that the CIA could manipulate. Again, the wiki article has numerous sources (which I’ve read through), do you have any sources to contradict the information that they contain?
You do realize that… The peer review process is not, inherently, robust, right?
There’s a reason different publication venues have different levels of prestige. Nature and Science? Very prestigious. The Lancet? Very prestigious. NeurIPS? Very prestigious. The Journal of Genocide Research? Not so prestigious.
Bro it too late to get your money back from that college?
Imagine citing Wikipedia lmao
You’d get laughed out of any academic context in a heartbeat
Removed by mod
That article is a masterclass in laundering false information to make propaganda palatable to impressionable people. From the very first paragraph it regurgitates false information. The funny thing is that the claim that more than one million Uyghers are interned does have a source, but they didn’t specify it. Probably because the source’s reliability has been dismantled and they think leaving it out is less blatant. Garbage journalistic standards either way, and obvious dishonest propagandizing. For the rest of the article, we already know the media spread misinformation about Xinjiang. Compiling it in a Wikipedia article does not make it any more legitimate or convincing.
Let’s see a source for your argument? The wiki links to journal articles to back up it’s claims, what do you have?
The burden of proof is on you to prove that a genocide is actually happening. (One can’t prove a negative)
There is a chinese context to it though: https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/xinjiang
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I was convinced by this Bell¿ncat satellite image of a concentration camp interning over a million people: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=31.416944&lon=34.365234&z=11&m=w
Removed by mod
They are completely different and this is a dumbass comment.
Just because a massive organization made up of millions of people lied once doesn’t mean everything else they ever say is a lie. That’s dumbass child level reasoning. Present sourced evidence that contradicts the sourced infromation in the wikipedia article or don’t bother commenting.
It seems you are unaware that these kinds of lies are rampant and have been documented for decades, to the point where reliable patterns have emerged:
A five minute primer: Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine
.
Perhaps you’re unaware of many of the US’s atrocities, because many are hidden or distorted through the above methods. Nobody lies like the imperial core propaganda machine.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Uh yeah it is, it sources it’s information
Removed by mod
They’re better than yours, the ones in that article link to journal articles, you’ve provided absolutely nothing.
Removed by mod
a few of the journal articles, though many of the reports from human rights groups, and the sheer volume of independent reports from different new outlets (big and small) is also rather compelling (as well as bellingcat’s reporting):
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Your failure to provide a reliable source for your claims is not my problem.
If you cannot provide a reliable source of your claims, your claim will be dismissed.
You spelled NATOpedia wrong.
Is there any reason to think “prolewiki” is more reliable than wikipedia?
Seems like it’s openly biased. And while I can appreciate the honesty, I’m not sure how it can be viewed as reliable.
Wikipedia is extremely unreliable and biased, and not even on political topics, even linguistical and scientific articles are prone to huge issues. (see: Scottish Gaelic) If you wish to call prolewiki as biased, I must tell you that wikipedia is even worse, it just has a more liberal bias. Follow their sources and you will see. ProleWiki discloses the bias up front, and has an squad of source patrollers who make sure when a claim is made, it is grounded in reality that can be sourced. Sure, there aren’t that many articles on it yet, but we strive to set a high standard because the slightest weak link in the project will be used by people like yourself to discredit us.
Disclaimer: I am a ProleWiki contributor.
So you’re aiming at truth, not communistic propaganda? I’m wondering why you/they choose to call it ProleWiki.
Was what I quoted up there a weak link? It’s on the footer of every page.
Because it’s the wiki of the people instead of the wiki of bourgeoisie interests, why the fuck else
lol, and you think the slop you’ve seen your entire life has been absolutely unbiased? We do analyze matters though the lens of marxism-lenninism, we make sure our sources and research is decent, and if that’s “communist propaganda” to you well, your loss lmao. But I have a hard time to take criticism from people who believe Adrian Zenz on anything
That wasn’t me though, I just barged into this conversation to talk about our perceptions and definitions of truth in these online encyclopedias more so than about Uyghurs.
Personally, I’m not quite sold on the Uyghur narrative on either side but I also haven’t looked into it a lot.
Yeah, nothing is (which includes Marxist-Leninism), but I unfortunately don’t have the time and resources to not trust something.
Well, You absolutely can, since it actually saves you time. Otherwise you’d go and listen to Fox News slop as well
There really isn’t much information even provided by the proponents of the genocide theory, for example their supposed police database leak that was going to be irrefutable evidence… it was fake. It had AI pictures and pictures of public figures. They did some political circus for a while, and then it just kind of died down, we don’t even have much to debunk because their claims were political circus aimed at the western people. If they can provide proper evidence, then I’ll take time to investigate properly.
Meanwhile there is an actual genocide of Muslims currently underway and so far so good western media seems to be on-board, so I have a hard time to believe them
Note, I am actually Iranian myself. If there is a Muslim genocide underway I’m inclined to go figure it out
deleted by creator
Not trusting Fox News is pretty fucking easy tbh :) Wikipedia is not quite as trivial, I feel.
Removed by mod
Well of course it is, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
/s, slightly
Removed by mod