Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by CleanedStar 4785 days ago
Of course I agree, but there's an extra reason why this is the case on Wikipedia. Let's take a look at "History of Iraq" on Wikipedia back in 2002 -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Iraq&#3...

"Once known as Mesopotamia, Iraq was the site of flourishing ancient civilizations, including the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Parthian cultures. Muslims conquered Iraq in the seventh century A.D. In the eighth century, the Abassid caliphate established its capital at Baghdad, which became a frontier outpost on the Ottoman Empire."

Now let's look at the US State Department profile of Iraq it had from 2001 to 2003 -

http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/iraq/24819.htm

"Once known as Mesopotamia, Iraq was the site of flourishing ancient civilizations, including the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Parthian cultures. Muslims conquered Iraq in the seventh century A.D. In the eighth century, the Abassid caliphate established its capital at Baghdad, which became a frontier outpost on the Ottoman Empire."

Yes, the history of Iraq on Wikipedia was literally written by the US State Department. As have the histories of most of the world's countries.

3 comments

Isn't it possible that the state department plagiarised Wikipedia?
Given that works of the US government are automatically in the public domain, it's not surprising that its publications had useful source material for very general summaries, for the English Wikipedia anyway. But article introductions are a pretty specific case, and there are few reasons to change them often. I don't think they're good proof of bias in the details of articles.
The last sentence is very strange--what would you do with as an answer in a high school history test?