Home Politics & Debate
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 MemberFormer 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 :p, you can't argue that all through wikipedia there isn't a moderate bias.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What are you doing faffing around with correcting info when you should be doing my essay?!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    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 :p, you can't argue that all through wikipedia there isn't a moderate bias.

    What article - and who were the scientists because they may well have been members of the Nazi party, many were.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
    me wrote:
    Hi tholly I thought I would bring up your reversals here after pointing out my perspective on my talk page. They were only minor edits to remove from my perspective obviously loaded terms, where an editor had used 'Nazi' instead of 'German', even though the sources cited did not indicate they were Nazi's at all. I thought this was much fairer, many countries such as the US etc. all employed German rocket scientists after WW2, nobody calls all them Nazi's just because they served under a fascist and evil regime. Lets call a spade a spade, a german scientist is a German, Nazis are those who subscribe to a political ideology. You said on my talk page they had been reverted not because they were bad, but because simply they were non-constructive. Could you define what you believe to be constructive then? I had comprehensive reasoning behind why I made the minor edits. By this reckoning, isn't an article tidy up non-constructive as well?

    Not responded to me though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's a difficult one - as I can see Nazi is inaccurate, but just German scientists doesn't show that these were men who had worked on the Nazi V-programme and had links to the Nazi regime.

    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.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Wikipedia is only there to be trolled.

    Use your account well. For lulz and victory. Change stuff, now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Like all other organisations which claim to be impartial, (one certain media institution in the UK comes to mind...) they're talking nonsense.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Let's be realistic now. It is wikipedia. What did you really expect? I looked at a wikipedia link once. It was for a retard who cares history project. It told me that right after WWII one German marc was the equlivent of one trillion US dollars. That "fact" was up there the entire semester. I wouldn't be surprised if it still is.
Sign In or Register to comment.