https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

You can notice a bias towards the state media from pro-capitalist regimes from the above.

You know you can make a page yourself right?

Go ahead and compile a list with sources referenced and write it up according to the style guide.

Some good reading about Wikipedia.

Fascist and colonial states atrocities are widely documented in Wikipedia, countries that we consider capitalist probably too. I recently stumbled across Belgian atrocities in Congo reading Wikipedia by accident. It motivated me to read more about it in the future, maybe "Heart of darkness" (while not exactly historical, it still seems like a good critique. By the way is it a good novel?).

True.

But there does not seem to be an equivalent page for 'Mass killings in capitalist regimes'

Even if it is documented, does it not show that how it is organised currently has an imbalance, likely from Anti-communist propaganda, things like red scare etc?

So, cannoted be unbiased, right? My focus was on that. There is no unbiased source, but only ones which acknowledge biases and maybe try to ensure that the biases do not affect the quality of the source too much.

True. Would be good to try that and see how it is handled

Asking for the help of others who may see this:
Could you help in listing major mass killings by capitalist states?

Will mention ones that I can remember now:

USAmerican regime - Kent State Uni massacre, MOVE bombing, BLM protestors murdered for protesting against the racist regime

British colonial regime in India - Jalianwallah Bagh massacre, Wagon massacre, Massacre of tribes in hilly states
If famines are included, then the Bengal famine, Madras famine, Travancore famine etc.

Mass killings in areas like Ireland n all by the British capitalist regime too

South Korean regime - Jeju island, Bodo league massacres and similar mass killings

Mass killings by Nazi Germany

But there does not seem to be an equivalent page for ‘Mass killings in capitalist regimes’

You can create that page. Don't forget to cite your sources and link to them or it will be deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_mass_killings

Ableism from a lib instance. Classic.

Is there a reason for deliberately breaking the rules by being ableist? Could you not have phrased your discontent with the meme in a way that doesn't break the rules?

It's always the same instances that post the most vile lib and fascist comments.

Also Imagine thinking someone is beyond critique because they are from the same instance

Post hog

Do you actually have a point, then? Why defend ableism? There are billions of ways to insult people that don't rely on bigotry.

👌👍

All of the conversation is surrounding your bigotry.

That is just killings against communists. That is not equal to killings under capitalist states.

Injustices such as the Ludlow would not fall under the former as the victims were not communists. They were workers seeking better wages and conditions under a capitalist system.

it will be deleted regardless because a lot of wikipedia editors are cia agents

No! You can't expect them to behave! They need to use blogs and disrecredited historians for citations!!! FACTS ARE CIA!!!

That's probably because most mass killings under capitalist regimes are just generally called "mass killings". They are your regular, run of the mill mass killings that aren't really newsworthy and that we are accustomed to.

Indonesia: Am I a joke to you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965–66

There is no "anti-capitalist mass killings" page either.

I don't think OP is concerned about the existence of one particular article, but rather the various systemic biases in what Wikipedia chooses to include or exclude.

Yeah dude just regular mass killings that happen every day

People have done this repeatedly and been nuked every time. It's extremely fucking telling that all the Wikipedia true believers have clearly never actually looked into the process themselves

It's so fucking stupid that you don't think anyone has tried this. And so fucking arrogant that you don't even bother you check before mouthing off.

"My sources are 'facts' because they say so! Your sources are 'discredited' because mine say so!"

A perfectly circular chain of reasoning

You might want to give some sources for that heading.

No! You can't deny the holy scripture! The tankies are at fault when we lose, for not believing hard enough!!! CIA ARE FACTS!!!

My previous comment was very cynical, but when you think about it communism is the historical anomaly. Sure you can point to the Mass killings wikipedia page, but you can also do that with other topics and they also are separated into "XY under communism" and "XY" articles. XY could be stuff like "Economy", "Urban development", "Housing" or "Worker's rights". It's just a convention wikipedia seems to adhere to.

Idk, I've learned a tremendous amount about things outside my culture... because of wikipedia. Don't let perfection be the enemy of good?

Edit: I apologize that my comment derailed from the conversation of Wikipedia having inherent and abundant Western bias... the fact that VOA is considered reputable is enough to turn heads. What I guess I was trying to say is that I wouldn't want people to ignore a good resource for information because of that... but it is also very important to point out and criticize their bias, if true neutrality is a Wikipedia "goal"

I apologize again. I would delete my comments, but I think it's important to own up to my own errors and have a record of what was said. Maybe others will learn from my misinterpretation of the conversation being presented, and my initial emotional responses

Idk, why should this issue be seen as good?

And what is your culture? Is Wikipedia good for it?

In what way is communism a historical anomaly in a manner that capitalism does not fit into? Both are part of the same historical development process.

It's not? Being informed is always positive, and it's always unfortunate that bias exists. I'd rather learn and try to understand my own bias, as opposed to being ignorant and having bias anyway

Do you have a tool that is just as accessible as wiki, but perfectly objective? Or are you throwing the baby out with the bath-water? Knowledge is good for any culture, and bias is a motherfucker to us all. Your critique isn't unwarranted, but it does flirt with anti-intellectualism

Being informed of the bias is also positive

No one mentioned anything about throwing the bathwater, but only hinted at the bias.

Are you trying to villainise and portray it as anti-intellectualism?
Are you thinking that the source you use is unbiased and trying to derial convos that hint at how it is not unbiased?

Noting the bias is a good thing and trying to shut down the convoys on that is a bigger mf to all of us.

Your concerns isn't unwarranted, but it does flirt with strawmanning and derailing the convo.

Sounds like we both flirt with some bias, doesn't it?

I'm on your side

• Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth says:

This page in a nutshell: Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.

Verifiability is as important as truth.

But reliable sources are biased!

From WP:BIASED (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources).

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

(Bolding mine)

But reliable sources are chosen by biased contributors!

OP attached to their comic repost RSP columns.

• Deutsche Welle: Reliability was never discussed in an RFC. Anyone complaining here of bias does not acknowledge their possibility (if they are not banned) of making an RFC on it.
• Voice of America: Discussed on RSN a few times. The last one is pretty interesting: Here
• Xinhua: Discussed here. ITT: It's quite old, but Xinhua is very controversial.
• Telesur: Discussed here around seven years ago. Quite conclusive, I would say.

It's an anomaly in the sense that it was present in high gear for around 70 years in the 20th century and most people (who are likely to read wikipedia) probably don't live in it right now. That's my one and only reason for calling it that.

Yeah, I just wanted to clarify.

That would be because you're supposed to contribute articles to the repository before you're allowed to just go scribbling on the walls. Authorarian and draconian, I know. A system likely devised by the CIA to oppress white people who never go outside

Roger that; just making sure o7

What point did you think you were making here?

"Being informed is positive" is not what is being argued against, and you know it. This is disingenuous and poor rhetorics.

Do you have a tool that is just as accessible as wiki, but perfectly objective? Or are you throwing the baby out with the bath-water?

More poor rhetorics. If youre not interested in actual discussion, why engage with someone acting in clear, good faith? Its pretty clear that the argument is that the issue with Wikipedia is that it presents itself as unbiased, while in fact being heavily biased. The issue is not the presence of bias itself.

Yeah there's always some post hoc justification for it

I think you may have misunderstood point of that image.

It not on the sources being biased(there are no unbiased sources), but noting the easily notable bias in the Wikipedia source selection, the preference for media funded by pro-capitalist regimes.

Do you see an issue in noting how Wikipedia has this bias, and going against the notion by some that it is unbiased or neutral?

Life's hard when I have to have the bare minimum of rigor before vandalizing public works

vandalizing public works

Lol. Calm down. Creating a Wikipedia page is not "vandalizing public works"

You're right. It's the requirement be granted editing privileges. Try to keep up. Or go read the rules before you whine. Or just stop playing dumb