![]() | I, the creator of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers. |
![]() ![]() ![]() | If this file is
eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed. You can help. |
![]() |
Some of the biggest problems with wikipedia on controversial issues seem to be that many of the US users and others have a thoroughly conservative view on history as well as economics. In this respect they seem to believe that any attempt at even remotely displaying signs of the actual historic controversy and debate that has in fact occured throughout the years must be POV. An incredible amount of energy is directed into silencing opposing views and voicing the winners version of history and historic events on even the smallest pieces of history. It's beginning to become almost frightening and reminiscent of the rewriting of history in some dictatorships we used to know all too well.
I don't know if this has something to do with the educational system, the US media, or just the general POV or political preferences of the users of wikipedia, but it creates a huge gap between many europeans views are of what is a fair and balanced view of history and the US version one meets on wikipedia.
No serious debate is generated and there seems to be a grave lack of understanding what the history subject is all about in some cases. Often encyclopedic form is used as an excuse although huge amounts of wiki articles on current entertainment industry pieces are far more extensive and cover several scores of pages and references and supplimentary pages.
(One media analyst summed it up in this fashion in his article):
"Propaganda from the Middle of the Road" - The Centrist Ideology of the News Media
"Another hallmark of centrist propaganda is to affirm, no matter what the evidence, that U.S. foreign policy is geared toward promoting democracy. Journalists are not unaware that the U.S. helped overthrow democratic governments, for example, in Guatemala in '54, Brazil in '64, Chile in '73 -- but these cases are considered ancient history, no longer relevant. (In centrist ideology, since the system is constantly fixing and renewing itself, U.S. abuses -- even against democracy -- become distant past overnight.)
Mainstream journalists respond to such criticism by explaining that articles for the daily press are not history texts and cannot include everything. That's true, but centrist propaganda finds space for certain histories and not others.
from a www.fair.org article by Jeff Cohen
from www.fair.org
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492 —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Nunamiut (
talk •
contribs) 09:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
Link to the talk page:
(return fire) this linkcreates and edits new comment paragraph that resides in the "discussions" page, for the user "John Smith (nom de guerre)".
Question: If we have to go back a while in terms of content, does this mean -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jtdirl
![]() | Content contributed by this user is released into the public domain. |
![]() | I, the creator of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers. |
![]() ![]() ![]() | If this file is
eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed. You can help. |
![]() |
Some of the biggest problems with wikipedia on controversial issues seem to be that many of the US users and others have a thoroughly conservative view on history as well as economics. In this respect they seem to believe that any attempt at even remotely displaying signs of the actual historic controversy and debate that has in fact occured throughout the years must be POV. An incredible amount of energy is directed into silencing opposing views and voicing the winners version of history and historic events on even the smallest pieces of history. It's beginning to become almost frightening and reminiscent of the rewriting of history in some dictatorships we used to know all too well.
I don't know if this has something to do with the educational system, the US media, or just the general POV or political preferences of the users of wikipedia, but it creates a huge gap between many europeans views are of what is a fair and balanced view of history and the US version one meets on wikipedia.
No serious debate is generated and there seems to be a grave lack of understanding what the history subject is all about in some cases. Often encyclopedic form is used as an excuse although huge amounts of wiki articles on current entertainment industry pieces are far more extensive and cover several scores of pages and references and supplimentary pages.
(One media analyst summed it up in this fashion in his article):
"Propaganda from the Middle of the Road" - The Centrist Ideology of the News Media
"Another hallmark of centrist propaganda is to affirm, no matter what the evidence, that U.S. foreign policy is geared toward promoting democracy. Journalists are not unaware that the U.S. helped overthrow democratic governments, for example, in Guatemala in '54, Brazil in '64, Chile in '73 -- but these cases are considered ancient history, no longer relevant. (In centrist ideology, since the system is constantly fixing and renewing itself, U.S. abuses -- even against democracy -- become distant past overnight.)
Mainstream journalists respond to such criticism by explaining that articles for the daily press are not history texts and cannot include everything. That's true, but centrist propaganda finds space for certain histories and not others.
from a www.fair.org article by Jeff Cohen
from www.fair.org
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492 —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Nunamiut (
talk •
contribs) 09:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
Link to the talk page:
(return fire) this linkcreates and edits new comment paragraph that resides in the "discussions" page, for the user "John Smith (nom de guerre)".
Question: If we have to go back a while in terms of content, does this mean -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jtdirl
![]() | Content contributed by this user is released into the public domain. |