this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
256 points (93.2% liked)

World News

32323 readers
1004 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Who do I believe, a random smug lemmier, or a well sourced wikipedia article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Listen man, even in the shitty college I went to we weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because it’s often laced with misinformation and has no standards for its citations.

Also when you’re trying to argue against a genocide being CIA propaganda, you cannot site literally the lowest effort citation that the CIA could ever hope for if they wanted to spread propaganda for any given thing.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Imagine citing Wikipedia lmao

You'd get laughed out of any academic context in a heartbeat

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

That article is a masterclass in laundering false information to make propaganda palatable to impressionable people. From the very first paragraph it regurgitates false information. The funny thing is that the claim that more than one million Uyghers are interned does have a source, but they didn't specify it. Probably because the source's reliability has been dismantled and they think leaving it out is less blatant. Garbage journalistic standards either way, and obvious dishonest propagandizing. For the rest of the article, we already know the media spread misinformation about Xinjiang. Compiling it in a Wikipedia article does not make it any more legitimate or convincing.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Let's see a source for your argument? The wiki links to journal articles to back up it's claims, what do you have?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

The burden of proof is on you to prove that a genocide is actually happening. (One can't prove a negative)

There is a chinese context to it though: https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/xinjiang

[–] [email protected] -3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)
[–] [email protected] -5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Is there any reason to think "prolewiki" is more reliable than wikipedia?

ProleWiki is a collaborative Marxist-Leninist project aiming to build an anti-imperialist communist encyclopedia with information on current events, communist parties worldwide, countries, as well as hosting a library of texts important to the international communist movement.

Seems like it's openly biased. And while I can appreciate the honesty, I'm not sure how it can be viewed as reliable.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Wikipedia is extremely unreliable and biased, and not even on political topics, even linguistical and scientific articles are prone to huge issues. (see: Scottish Gaelic) If you wish to call prolewiki as biased, I must tell you that wikipedia is even worse, it just has a more liberal bias. Follow their sources and you will see. ProleWiki discloses the bias up front, and has an squad of source patrollers who make sure when a claim is made, it is grounded in reality that can be sourced. Sure, there aren't that many articles on it yet, but we strive to set a high standard because the slightest weak link in the project will be used by people like yourself to discredit us.

Disclaimer: I am a ProleWiki contributor.