Anti-Pinochet bias on en.wikipedia

25 December 2004 | Critto

[Critto]

I'm an active participant in wikipedia. Generally, it's a wonderful project that allows people to share their knowledge and find some more. There are, however, things that make me feel disappointed and disgusted.

The biggest problem there is bias. As there are many leftists out there, they tend to show the history in a way that is favorable to them. Not only that they write the biased articles, where all achievements of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan (RIP) or Augusto Pinochet are belittled, and the alleged "achievements" of the socialist and communist governments are applauded; some of them also do make attempts to silence the dissenting views.

Such is the case of the articles related to Pinochet, his Coup and Miracle of Chile. Just take a look at the following pages: "Augusto Pinochet" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet) and "Miracle of Chile" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile), read their history (each page has its own history of changes) and you will find, that: 1. any mention of facts that might be seen as favorable for Pinochet is being removed each time they show up, 2. any links that might be seen as defending or supporting the stance of General are being removed each time they show up.

Only the anti-Pinochet, pro-leftist sources are allowed to stay. Talking about the article called "Augusto Pinochet", one wikipedian has removed all links to the sources that put General in a good light (put by me and some other folks), and left only the ones as "Crimes of General Augusto Pinochet". The reason for removal (inserted in the comments accompanying each change)? He (or she) finds them "biased"! Biased! And the anti-Pinochet pieces are left as the "reliable sources"!

The case of the article on "Miracle of Chile" is even worse. Few months ago, I found there some allegations that the rule of Pinochet caused the real wages to drop by 40%. Well, I have made some research and found out, that while it might have been true, it was because Allende has artificially raised them by 39% before. So, believing in the wikipedian ideas of NPOV (Neutral Point of View), I put my findings on those facts on this page, accompanied with two links (one to its source and the second to Liga Chilena Anti-Comunista). What a suprise, when few months after (namely: yesterday, 24. of December ) I found it COMPLETELY DELETED! The only external link left alone was ... Greg Palast's anti-capitalist book "The best democracy money can buy". My information on Allende artificially raising the wages was totally removed, too; only the allegation that Pinochet's rule caused the fall in wages by 40% was left intact. The reason behind it? "well, we should make some consensus, or else, we will have the never-ending counter-counter-criticism havoc". Well, so why not delete the sources favorable to the leftist point of view?

Now I'm deliberating, what does removal of sources and silencing of the other side has to do in common with any research, truth, skepticism? Must wikipedia ultimately become the den of leftists? Take a look at the articles on communism, Mao Ze Dong, Lenin, October Revolution, and the famine in Ukraine, too. You will find -- if not in their current versions, then in their histories -- even some attempts of denial of the communist crimes that were found out to be true many years ago, or the efforts to belittle them or to justify them in some way.

I think that it's very important that we, anti-communist, conservative, libertarian and classical-liberal folks put a spotlight on what's happening on wikipedia. Only the public opinion may improve things there. Please participate in their discussions and edits. Please tell your friends. Until wikipedia becomes the source of information that is actually encyclopedic, NPOV and independent, we should constantly watch the doings of contributors and right them wherever they're wrong. And tell the people to let them know this source isn't so reliable now.

In Liberty, Critto

[Psycho_Bunny]

Oh, wait. I misunderstood you. Sorry, I thought you were a troll and thoughtlessly shot from the hip. I've asked that my post be removed.

[nothingnew]

Merry Christmas and welcome to FReerepublic.

The marxists invade and detract from all good things. It's their MO.

FMCDH(BITS)

[Drango]

Here is a thread from yesterday? regarding what wikipedia says about FR

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1308080/posts

[Arkinsaw]

Wikipedia is a lost cause. When I was on there, quite a few contributors were engaged in an effort to put something about Bush and Iraq in articles that didn't have the slightest connection. There were Bush/Iraq comments stuck in articles about people who have been dead 20 years and that caused no fuss.

If you have a conservative bias in an article, its removed on the spot. If you have a liberal bias in an article, then it has to be discussed, and debated, and argued about, and fought over for a year and half.

Many of the contributors want a neutral encyclopedia, but their policies are taken advantage of by the leftist partisans.

When you get into conflict, it is not about who has the logical argument, its about who is the most persistent and who yelps the loudest for the longest. Liberals have us beat from the start in situations where lengthy yelping is the determinant and logic is not.

[jdege]

My rants have had to do with the pro-AKC bias among the dog breed entries.

[FReepaholic]

...Without SOME editorial process, wikis are, and can never be, no more reliable as information-sources than alt.conspiracy...

Even with a so-called editorial process, bias creeps in. Just look at the US "mainstream" media.

[Arkinsaw]

The problems you have pointed out are the reasons why the wikipedia (and the wiki concept in general) are irreparably flawed. Without SOME editorial process, wikis are, and can never be, no more reliable as information-sources than alt.conspiracy, Democratic Underground, or (dare I say it) FreeRepublic.

The world is too divided for there to be any neutral source. Wikipedia is a utopian dream, and like all utopian dreams, it is abused by the greedy, obnoxious, and closed-minded (human nature). The problem always is, that the utopians don't realize that their utopia is being ill-used until its too late.

The public is in a new age, they have to ingest a variety of sources and views and then judge them logically. Taking pieces here and there on their own. There is no neutral source. Wikipedia can claim to be neutral, but it is not, and cannot be. It bears the POV of its contributors no matter what its press releases say.

It is in fact, more dangerous because it claims to be neutral. I will say, that it is about as neutral as its majority liberal overseers can make it, given the fact that there are so few conservative voices there and that there are a great many liberal partisans there who don't hold "neutrality" in as high esteem as the project leaders.

[nothingnew]

The public is in a new age, they have to ingest a variety of sources and views and then judge them logically.

Good reply. I have found that using prejudice (in the true meaning of the word, not the left's bastardized version) and His gift of DISCERNMENT usually helps me in the understanding of almost anything.

FMCDH(BITS)

[dhuffman@awod.com]

Indeed, we are blessed with the gift of discernment of good and evil and the gift of discriminating based on those discernments. Merry Christmas.

[nothingnew]

...the gift of discriminating based on those discernments.

Discriminate is the other key word I was trying to convey...alas, many braincells have departed since last night.

Discrimination is indeed a gift from Him. Too bad it's true meaning has been hijacksoned by those who would take away our freedoms of thought and true choice.

Merry Christmas.

FMCDH(BITS)

[jude24]

No sympathy.

Pinochet was a fascist, pure and simple, who used summary executions to try to maintain law and order in Chile.

I don't care if, because he fought leftists, you like him. He was an indefensible bastard.

Supporting him is sort of like supporting Adolf Hitler because he fought against the Communists.

[wtc911]

Hard to be biased against a guy who used rape as a political tool. The agrument you Pinochet groupies use is the same one the Fidelistas use to gloss over his barbarity. Both groups are despicable.

[isom35]

I'm curious aboutCritto here. what is the thought proces like:
hmmm, its Christmas...what should I do today...I know!, I'll go join freerepublic and post an article about wikipedia. does anyone find that just a bit on the weird side?

[GladesGuru]

Wiki(d) (Encyclo)pedia.

Amateur hour personified. The New York Slimes is often a better source.

[Arkinsaw]

No sympathy. Pinochet was a fascist, pure and simple, who used summary executions to try to maintain law and order in Chile. I don't care if, because he fought leftists, you like him. He was an indefensible bastard. Supporting him is sort of like supporting Adolf Hitler because he fought against the Communists.

I think you are missing the point. The point is not support for Pinochet, the point is that you can't state truthful facts about Pinochet in what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia because partisans on the other side think that the truth makes Pinochet out to look better than they want.

I experienced the same thing there. You can't put in facts that detract from the underlying premises even if your intent is just to put in a fact (at least not without a huge freaking fight).

I understand that you don't like Pinochet, but I assume that you are not in favor of removing all facts regarding Pinochet that don't match your dislike. I hate Hitler, but I am not in favor of throwing his ideas on Volkswagen or autobahns down the memory hole just because they were moderately good concepts that he supported.

Encyclopedias are for facts, even if they don't support your own point of view.

[Arkinsaw]

See my #19.