|
|
|
|
|
|
by pastacacioepepe
1576 days ago
|
|
|
> One place to start might be Wikipedia, the culture there is very much "organize knowledge" as opposed to "achieve some political end". There's a crowd right now trying to remove any reference to neo-nazism in the Azov Battalion wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&ac... Please go ahead and verify it yourself. Among this crowd there are the same people that curate the sections about the Uyghur oppression in China. I don't fully trust Wikipedia either for these reasons. > Just think about that from a logical perspective: if you start your proof with false axioms, you can never produce anything true. You can only produce a universe of internally-consistent false statements. I strongly disagree. By watching propaganda from both sides, I can easily understand what are the interests in play and what is each side's reasoning. By confronting it then with the rest of the independent information I can form a cohesive opinion. I won't trust anyone to provide me with "news" at the moment. We have to do the hard job and create our news with the sparse information available. |
|
|
There are always going to be people trying to push certain agendas anywhere.
There's a major difference between an organization whose overarching goal is to produce accurate information, and an organization whose overarching goal is to push for some kind of political gain.
I checked the article you linked to and there's a reference to neo-nazism in the opening paragraph. So your example seems to indicate that Wikipedia is able to withstand ideological attacks (which agrees with my general impression).
> I can easily understand what are the interests in play and what is each side's reasoning.
While I can see that it would be hard to get a feel for what different actors' motivations are from raw facts, I believe that you would still need them as a baseline to understand the propaganda. And it sounds like a lot of (error-prone) work!
Although I speak from ignorance as I am not on any social media and am pretty extreme about filtering my information sources. But I have to say, having had conversations with two people who take this approach, that I am skeptical: both have ended up with very strange/distorted world views and have trouble trusting any institutions (Which makes sense! A core goal of someone trying to destroy a system is to undermine its credibility!)