What's the most inaccurate or misleading history-related Wikipedia article?
>>18467788For what I can judge, given my limited knowledge and expertise, Wikipedia rarely publishes bold lies, i.e. tells you something wrong.The issue is twofold. First, Wikipedia tends to frame topics through the lens of modern Western academia.If you are fine with treating this point of view as an absolute, then Wikipedia honestly is not that terrible. However, they seldom depict the viewpoint of the losing side or of groups that stand in disfavor with Western academic circles. For instance, the Crusades receive far more criticism than Islamic expansion, while both articles tend to spare the perspective of the conquered peoples, for example, women who were captured by Muslim invaders and sold into slave markets.The second misfortune with Wikipedia is that they publish a lot of errors. Errors differ from lies in that they are unintentional.Wikipedia also tends to repeat many myths that are popular among ‘educated people.’ Sometimes, articles are internally inconsistent.In short: Wikipedia is a parrot of the mainstream academia.
>In short: Wikipedia is a parrot of the mainstream academia.I mean they openly admit as much, what with them explicitly preferring secondary over primary sources to make sure that the article actually reflects the current consensus and all?
>>18467893Yes!But you skip the important part:They do it because "take the primary source" would make the article actual research in the eyes of the community.It's like if you make a experiment yourself and wants to published it there.>18467878Kek, janni censored
>>18467909They aren't wrong there. History is the result of interpreting primary sources and data, and their articles reflect the most commonly accepted interpretation of those within the literature of the article's language (at least when they don't simply translate from the English article).Also, often that is based on primary sources that aren't available digitized, so they would have nothing to link to anyway.
>>18467788https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frankpretty much a Jew rapist who murdered a 13 year old back in Georgia at the turn of the 20th century and was guilty 100% no doubt but the Wikipedia page analyst kikes like to promote his being wrongfully convicted which is a disgrace.Please help me in the talk section, there's too many Jews for me to take on alone but help me write this wrong
>>18467893>>18467909I just ignore that and explicitly use primary sources when writing/editing articles. It's not "your own research" if you simply repeat what the source says at face value. Research means delving deeper, connecting dots, interpreting beneath the written word. Woe be to the faggots at wp that misunderstand that.
>>18467939>black wuz samurai>trans woman pregnancy>Commie theory
>>18467939>and was guilty 100% no doubtWas he though?
>>18467788Realistic answer?Some article in a native language regarding a conflict or occurrence of national importance that is drenched with propaganda. For English speaking articles, there isn't really such a thing since every English Wikipedia article has a wide audience observing/discussing it
>>18467788Wikipedia claims that the catholic church is a christian church, this is unacceptable.How can they make such claim when the catholics clearly are not christians, were never christians to begin with and will never be christians.
>>18467980Not how it works, seething christcuck
>>18467788All zionist shilling articles
>>18467975They assert consensus that he was innocent based on a book review by one (((Dinnerstein))), and a CNN article by one (((Jessiva Ravitz))) which also states consensus is such and such based on examples of how the investigation was poorly conducted. She is/was, incidentally, a leader in the ADL.Maybe they've chanted it in the years since, I don't have time to check.
>>18467912>They aren't wrong there.I do not say that they are wrong. Just, in the realm of art and humanities, it is important to know different viewpoints in order to make a worth judgement.When you click on Wikipedia for your homework, you make, most likely, nothing wrong. It starts to get fishy if you want a most accurat picture as you got all the biases of Westian academics into it. This reached from Aristotle, over interpretation of quantum mechanics etc.>>18467939 Just a reminder, retard:The things you have a strong opinion about happend generations before you was born.It is not something you the traces of it can be seen from the moon. Whatever happened back in the day, you need a careful inquiry into the source to judge.But you don't do it. You start with a opinion and looking for something to justify it, out of hatred.We all know what kind of retard you're. I don't appreciate you!>>18467975 Don't listen to him.
>>18467943>I just ignore that and explicitly use primary sources when writing/editing articlesGood luck when the first "akschually, scientific literature says" comes along. And some of the crowd will come along, sooner or later.>Research means delving deeper, connecting dots, interpreting beneath the written word.Not true at all.If you toke a text that describes something and citied it as "proof that it happend", then you presuppose that the text tells the truth. It's trivial that scource can be contradict each other and the written word can contradict the reality.Take the example of Roman historians. Many things they describe may never have taken place. They wrote their histories often generations AFTER the fact. They rely on other documents, oral history, and sometimes guesswork.And the Roman historians were even fair insofar as they described their methodology as an introduction to their work. In the case of other documents, you do not know what they are supposed to mean. Are they just a bunch of notes? Chronicles of events? Gossip journals for an educated elite? The use of history as an example for moral or other lessons?>>18467977Have you any idea how much more filtered the English info sphere is about e.g. Europe or Japan?
>>18468060>Have you any idea how much more filtered the English info sphere is about e.g. Europe or Japan?You do realize Japanese and Europeans participate in writing English articles? That's literally my entire point
>>18467788Not a page exactly, but the flag of Austria-Hungary being the Civil ensign for a good while probably warped people's perception and how they depict the state in Pop History.
>>18467855no it gets worsea lot of "reliable sources" aren't academia but journalism reporting on academia, and editors usually have far more access to journalism than to academic works hidden in paywalled journals.And for anything that happened since wikipedia's founding, it's exponentially worse in that regard, because there you have to contend with current events reporting (but only from the pro-NATO and pro-corporate official press, nothing else is a "reliable source") and not just lazy/misunderstood summaries of history books.
>>18468060>If you toke a text that describes something and citied it as "proof that it happend", then you presuppose that the text tells the truth. It's trivial that scource can be contradict each other and the written word can contradict the reality.Which is why you always write something along the lines of "In the Vita Sancti Whateveri it is said that St. Whatever did this and that", the same way you would write "Dr. Libtard Marxist wrote that [retarded thesis]". Funny that thisn't commonplace on Wikipedia, since this is extremely basic literally anywhere there is even an iota of credibility.I usually edit pretty niche articles and thus have (usually) quite a degree of freedom in wholely restructuring it. When doing so, I always order information by primary source. So, for example, in the biography of St. Whatever, I'll put a subchapter of De Thinga, where he first appeared as a background character, then comes the subchapter Vita Sancti Whateveri, which is the main source for his life, but then he also appears in the Vita Sancti Whomeveri, etc.>Good luck when the first "akschually, scientific literature says" comes alongIn the above mentioned structure it's quite easy to represent what Dr. Libtard Marxist says, as well as the refutation by Fr. Based OSB.>And some of the crowd will come along, sooner or later.Rue that day then.
>>18467788Gamergate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
>>18467788Genuinely don't trust it for humanities and only use Wikipedia for hard STEM topics which are pretty much impossible to dispute or argue over (2+2=4 no matter what, whereas something like "the history of Bumfuckistani village disputed by two countries over the last 100 years" is obviously going to be a battlefield of competing agendas and interests)
>>18467983Opposite. Palestine shills dominate Wikipedia.
>>18467788>American history in the last 20 yearsDon't read that, I'm not kidding.
>>18467788I wouldn't say 'the most' but basically any article about the history of China qualifies. Because Chinkspammer owns those like its a colonial fief. Nothing he says is outright a lie, but he difinitely likes to omit and has a very clear bias.New Qing History is based and he is a seething buck-toothed Sallow-skinned, yellow, Chinese-American.
>>18467788This gem fooled Wikipedia for yearshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Brahmanical_See
>>18468984Examples?
>>18468895>only use Wikipedia for hard STEM topicsAs a STEMtroon, I wouldn't recommend using Wikipedia to learn about STEM subjects. When it comes to most articles about STEM stuff, Wikipedia articles tend to have very technical definitions that usually amount up to something like "an A is a B that X-es Ys in a Z manner", which is only comprehensible if you already know what Bs, X-ing, Ys, and the Z manner is. At formal education institutions, you'd usually have to read several textbooks and go through various courses where you would be slowly guided through each concept and examples thereof so as to develop intuition for each one and finally be able to imagine how each concept fits together.I find Wikipedia to be more useful not for learning about things for the first time, but rather to recall the meaning of something that I already learned about before but might not quite recall the finer details of.What I do find Wikipedia to be optimal for is to encounter trivia about stuff that I'll never be challenged on and that I do not have to fear being criticized for gaps on my understanding about, such as the history of public transportation companies on the other side of the world from where I live, or the lives of 1960s folk musicians from countries that I do not plan on ever visiting.
has to be sth recent like this
>>18469181Libtards will be seething for centuries that they failed to turn this shit into some kind of Nuremberg trial and everyone involved was pardoned. In 2226 there will probably be some libtard historian seething that they weren’t hard enough on the J6ers and that they should have reeducated their entire families in concentration camps or some shit like how they seethe about reconstruction today.
>>18467893If Wikipedia is just gonna be a secondary source reproduction factory then people are unironically better off using ChatGPT.
MAGAs will be seething for centuries that their candidate lost the 2020 election and failed to turn J6 into a righteous defense of democracyIn 2226 there will be some MIGA historian seething that he was kicked out of every reputable academic institution for still trying to rehabilitate a bunch of seditious retards and now has no choice but to grift on 4chan 7.0 for a living even though his cult leader stopped being relevant after his second term
>>18467788English articles concerning events and people that are primarily recorded in non-English sources. The two specific examples I remember are the English and Japanese articles for Sasaki Doyo and Shibusawa Eiichi disagreeing on the number, sex, and identities of their children. And probably other things too, but those were the ones that stuck out to me as an EOP.So the next time you're reading about some obscure historical figure from medieval Vietnam or whatever just remember that the details may be way off.
>>18469181>>18469185>there are actual groyper spics on this board seething about muh republicans vs DemocratsLmfao go back to Facebook you normalcattle trannies
>>18469209>EOPWhat
>>18469187Problem being that LLM explicitly don't contain facts or knowledge, they're just very good at producing text strings that can approximate them.
>>18469306You just described the average Wikipedia editor
>>18469370We aren't calling up the editors to answer our questions, so their individual capacity and the modes in which they store and retrieve information is irrelevant to us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_warship,_go_fuck_yourselfthey write about it as if it really happened. then they have a transcript of the conversation with a "Ukrainian 2", which is a female voice. wikipedia doesn't even mention that it is a woman who has never been identified. Russians captured only men on Snake Island. It's literal disinformation.
>>18468004Just checked the talk page. You aren't really doing a good job at refuting their points regarding secondary sources.
>>18469414Anything Ukraine related is North Korea tier state propaganda. They renamed the maidan coup to the "revolution of dignity" and treat the holodomor as a matter of fact despite academic consensus that it did not occur.
