I have reviewed the video start to finish for the 4th time this morning trying to figure out what the fucking hell you're talking about. And I don't see. Following is my summary of essentially every answer he gave. While he did, properly, refer to the "establishment" perspective being predominant, there can be no confusion that he is specifically calling out liberal bias that has crept insidiously into the Wikipedia document. If you are not getting that, then you might want watch it again, because it is clearly the heart of the matter.
He made it abundantly clear that the outset style of Wikipedia was that you would find multiple points of view, with an understanding that two things can be true at one time of the same set of facts. You see it one way, I see it another, and that is acceptable if both perspectives are included.
The politicization occurs when a single political viewpoint dominates as a result of pages being monitored and edited on the fly through the normal process to ensure that only the desired point of view is presented.
I don't know how you turned his comments into what you posted but they weren't what HE said.
-If only one version of the facts is allowed that gives wealthy and powerful people to seize control to "shore up" their power, and they do that.
-You can trust it to give a reliably establishment POV on everything; but truth? It depends on what YOU think the truth is. There is not, of course, a single version of the truth in many instances. (This is consistent with the Democrat thinking on most topics, I would add -- their version of the truth is THE truth in their minds).
-In early years Wikipedia was committed to neutrality in collaboration. It was easier for people to participate then; Today, because topics are effectively monitored by partisans of one kind or another and if an ordinary person tries to make an edit, they will be discouraged, overwritten, and ultimately, perhaps, kicked out of the "club" who has edit access. It is politicized, as I was saying.
- Because money and politics have taken over, there is great motivation to make an article say what some person wants said in an article. Paid consultants are used to keep articles saying what someone wants them to say and to ensure THEIR version of the truth is front and center.
- Example is given -- Biden article has very little in the way of the concerns Republicans have about Biden, and you get nothing from that article remotely resembling the Republican POV. He gives the example of the example that there isn't even a single paragraph about the Ukraine scandal on the Biden page. He says very little can be found in Wikipedia about the scandal, and what CAN be found "reads like a defense counsel's brief".
- When asked how this happens, he explains that there are a lot of Biden partisans who are motivated to make the article more politically neutral, but they are NOT ALLOWED THE ACCESS. In spite of the fact there is still a neutrality policy in place.
- He makes his statement about articles being "not just political; Wikipedia is reliably establishment in its viewpoint", he goes on to say that at the outset they (the creators) embraced the anti-establishment point of view.
-He gives examples of eastern medicine, which he indicates is discounted by Wiki, and then goes on to Christianity, which is presented in the liberal, mainline denominations perspective rather than any fundamentalist viewpoint. He points out that while Christianity is portrayed through an academic POV, the point of Wiki is canvas all the significant points of view. While no one view of Christianity should be elevated, he presents his (and presumably Wiki's objective view) that it is big, important topic that where the breadth of it should at least be "explained".
-He is asked don't we really WANT an establishment view in many cases, rather than a list of different viewpoints. His response gives as an example drug legalization, which is presented with "a typical progressive libertarian think tank view" on what they call drug 'liberalization'. He explains the reader looking at this topic is looking for a "means of deciding what they think about the topic" -- neutrality, not a progressive view.
-Readers do not want to be "led by the nose". If that is what you want, or what your party things, or what the dictator wants -- you're seeking propaganda.
-Asked, "You now feel that Wiki represents propaganda" he replies, "I think all of the media does, but yes, I do."
- On the pandemic, he says Wiki simply "mouths" the views of organizations like the WHO, World Economic Counsel, FAUCI, CDC, FDA, etc. He points out that topic is to be based on secondary sources (journalists, for example), yet citing Daily Mail or Fox News is OUT, cannot do it -- banned. Hence, only center-left media accounts in relation to the pandemic are available.
- What would a neutral presentation on the pandemic be like? For one thing, lots of experts, Nobel winners, distinguished doctors, etc., whose views are literally censored on Youtube, Facebook and Twitter where they contradict the narrative [he didn't discuss it but this is a gigantic topic the the political left seems just fine with, what amounts to the practice of electronic book-burning].
- The question is raised about whether you couldn't just have an "encyclopedia of fact" -- at which the guest laughs as he should and points out that controversial topics ALWAYS have credible points of view on different sides.
- In regard to the McAfee suicide, "If we put one version of reality out there, we are manipulating what everyone is supposed to believe, IOW, making a decision about what people are supposed to believe and takes away the right to decide". "This is our POLITICAL lives, how we vote". So if only one version of the facts is allowed there is a huge incentive among wealthy and powerful people to seize control...to shore up their power and they do that.
- Now there is this movement that didn't exist back in 2001-2005 where voices are literally being silenced and there is global enforcement on issues like Covid which is amazing to a libertarian or liberty-loving conservative.
- Paraphrasing, "when the Internet started, there were a plethora of independent voices and we trusted outlets like Facebook, twitter and youtube and allowed them to take over the world. We trusted them with our privacy, our data, our liberty, that they weren't going to shut us down. And they stabbed us in the back. "
- He goes on to point out his use of a NAS as a protective measure against being shut out. [There is a great opportunity there to solve the problem of editing by Google, Twitter or Facebook]. |
