If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Grrr @ wikipedia
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
So I made a minor edit to an article the other day, basically it was about the assassination of these WW2 German scientists and the article said they were nazi's, so I read the source and changed it to German because you can't just conclude German = Nazi, but it's been reverted because it's unconstructive!!
I really do get fed up with wikipedia, there is such an editorial bias on there. And if you change it to be fair, it gets reverted not for any good reason but because it doesn't agree with whoever's political agenda. I think it's bad you can substitute German with Nazi and get away with it. That would be like me saying 'Russia captured 15,000 Nazi prisoners of war in WW2 in Berlin' which would be bullshit, Nazi = ideology that not everyone subscribes to.
I guess it's pretty stupid arguing about it, but they just blank you and revert it continuously. This isn't mindless vandalism either, this will be a few editors who are abusing their position.
I was having a discussion in the pub about it generally, and this guy said thats why they brought about conservepedia. Now whilst that is completely lol-stupid , you can't argue that all through wikipedia there isn't a moderate bias.
I really do get fed up with wikipedia, there is such an editorial bias on there. And if you change it to be fair, it gets reverted not for any good reason but because it doesn't agree with whoever's political agenda. I think it's bad you can substitute German with Nazi and get away with it. That would be like me saying 'Russia captured 15,000 Nazi prisoners of war in WW2 in Berlin' which would be bullshit, Nazi = ideology that not everyone subscribes to.
I guess it's pretty stupid arguing about it, but they just blank you and revert it continuously. This isn't mindless vandalism either, this will be a few editors who are abusing their position.
I was having a discussion in the pub about it generally, and this guy said thats why they brought about conservepedia. Now whilst that is completely lol-stupid , you can't argue that all through wikipedia there isn't a moderate bias.
0
Comments
What article - and who were the scientists because they may well have been members of the Nazi party, many were.
Surely that would constitute original research though? If you're interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#1955_-_1963:_Ben-Gurion_II:_Sinai_Campaign_.26_Eichmann_Trial
Where it says they began recruiting 'former Nazis', I looked up the link (there are two) and they indicate that they were German scientists, not that they were Nazis. (But you can see politically why someone would want to argue Egypt was hiring 'Nazis').
I said why I had changed it fairly, and am not doing a revert war, but there was honestly no reason why it was 'unconstructive'. (Which according to my spell checker isn't a word, lol)
I make loads of little edits like that on articles if they seem a bit loaded or something, never signed up as they're all minor and I state why I've changed it. Sometimes even spelling mistakes. It just seems a bit unusual for someone to change such a minor thing back stating it was unconstructive. Confusing.
Not responded to me though.
I think something like 'German scientists who had worked on Germany's V-weapon programme' might get over it, but then that might be biased as well.
Use your account well. For lulz and victory. Change stuff, now.