English wikipedia is not that better off. Good luck opening the "Socialism" or "Communism" articles, and finding any mention of deaths and horrors of notorious socialist and communist regimes like the Soviet Union. And good luck trying to add this information to these articles yourself.
The lack of red-scare anticommunist propaganda in these articles isn't misinformation. Rather, one wonders why the same standard you expect for these articles isn't applied to those about the United States government and its own domestic and international abuses. In fact, wikipedia's owners support spreading regime change propaganda on the website [1]
> Non-English Wikipedia communities tend to be much more isolated, resulting in inherent bias on certain topics.
Isn't this just a reflection of the biases of these language communities (usually equating a country)? If so, what are we outsiders to do about it? For example, non-Japanese Wikimedia staff forcing content or administrative change in the Japanese Wikipedia is unlikely to be well received by its inhabitants.
In a lot of cases there is specific bias. For the Italian version, for example, a few right-wing admins banded together and systematically misrepresented the issues related to the Italian Eastern border, including insisting to prioritize “Italian” names for sites that are not in Italy anymore (and used to be only for a very brief period before WWII). It would be funny if it weren’t a conscious attempt to influence the mainstream.
5 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 21.2 ms ] thread1. https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/11/meet-wikipedias-ayn-rand-...
Isn't this just a reflection of the biases of these language communities (usually equating a country)? If so, what are we outsiders to do about it? For example, non-Japanese Wikimedia staff forcing content or administrative change in the Japanese Wikipedia is unlikely to be well received by its inhabitants.