The Propaganda Model and Wikipedia

submitted by jgier98 from (ahealedplanet.net)

all 7 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]pulverize 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's a fine site if you want info on a plant or animal species, personnel of a film or album, dates, births or deaths of historical significance. Anything you would find in an encyclopedia. Any content on Wikipedia that is outside that purview is suspect

Always check the citations

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You can find a citation for damned near anything. The quality of the citations is important and how would anyone but a person with significant knowledge of the subject matter know. It's just the human condition. In areas they have no expertise, people believe on faith, chosing whichever answer appeals to them the most.

A few years back the wikipedia entry on kratom was changed to be a pretty critical entry whereas before it was more neutral/positive towards its subject matter. Suspiciously, that happened right during the FDA's failed push to outlaw kratom.

People in the kratom community tried to change it back but someone was sitting on it. The entry was locked.

About the time the gov gave up on scheduling kratom federally, the wikipedia article was finally changed to a more neutral, albeit a slightly negative slant now.

I never thought about the connection before, but how clever of them. The FDA also was screenshotting r/kratom, it's why there are weirdly strict rules on what you can say now. A dude got that from FOIA requests. They were snooping.

So anyways my point, is how would a citation tell you anything unless you check those out.

[–]pulverize 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The wiki on methamphetamine, cocaine, 2CB, Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) are all technically accurate

My point is, they tell you everything an encyclopedia entry should tell you.

the cultural significance or usage of those substances is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If someone wants to write a summary I'm all up for reading the short version.

edit: I have determined 15 sentences to be the ideal length of communication that inspires maximum truthiness feelings while retaining the attention of people who were only midly curious in the first place, the sort of curiosity that would be sated with 15 sentences.

I will, however, accept entries of any length because beggars can't be choosers, right. I'm not entirely sure anyone will write anything anyways.

[–]pulverize 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Verbosity is distraction. Say what needs to be said and get the fuck out. And don't used made-up words like "truthiness"

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Truthiness is a word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

[–]pulverize 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're queefingly correct. I just looked it up on dictionary.shlom and it was coined by Stephen Colbert in 2005. Well, I'm peptizinaly wrong then. I'm not even angry as a bird that you correctingtaliafied me. After all, Bazinglish is a living languish. 2 + 2 = 5

Here's your participation trophy. You won.