Plenty of subtle agenda-pushing on Wikipedia if you're paying attention
As an experiment I tried to get some fairly innocuous numbers into participation in Australia sport.
There is a big survey done in Australia, the Ausplay survey:
https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/
They have extensive tables on adult participation.
Two editors would not let this data into the sport in Australia article. The reason was fairly obvious, it shows that soccer/football is the most played team sport in Australia. Roy Morgan, a statistical agency also had similar figures. Some Australians don't like the fact that soccer/football is by far the most played team sport in Australia according to to the Ausplay Survey and Roy Morgan.
There was much time spent in the talk pages spent asking these two what would be acceptable for quoting these sporting statistics. The answer was nothing.
If you can't get fairly unobjectionable material like that into wikipedia what else is being blocked?
As can be expected when you're told that "the reason was fairly obvious" and that reason is somewhat nefarious, that reason is not the one given by anybody involved. Instead, people took issue with the methodology used to gather the data.
(I have no idea if that criticism is legitimate, nor do I have any other horse in this race, nor do I care the least bit about the popularity of horse racing in Australia which, yes, happens to be part of that debate.)
They didn't care about that.
I will note that the existing participation section of that article states that soccer has a higher participation rate than any other team sport amongst males (netball being higher for females), so it's extremely clearly that editors aren't objecting to the tables' inclusions on that claim alone, given that it's made in the article either way.
In Australia there are quite a few people who view soccer as 'wogball' and a foreign sport. Just as in the US some view soccer as not being American.
Oh, and always read talk pages.
The most interesting thing of these differences is that they're saying the same thing,but the agenda is clear in that saying the same thing is more positive or negative depending on the language.
Russian > Gab is an English-speaking social network . Gab is described as being tolerant of different patriotic groups [5] and a safe haven for communities that would be restricted or blocked on other social networks [6] . The Gab groups can be characterized as patriotic, white supremacist and alternative right [5] . The site allows each user to forward a message to 3000 other users, which are called "gebs" [7] . It has been revealed that Gab is generally a favorite platform for people with conservative, libertarian , patriotic views. [8]
English > Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right and extremist userbase.[3][4][5][6] Widely described as a haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right, it has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social networks.[7][8][18] Gab claims to promote free speech and individual liberty, though these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right and extremist ecosystem.[16][19][20] Antisemitism is prominent among the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter.[22][23][24] Researchers have written that Gab has been "repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events".[25]
Really interesting how language and national propaganda propagates through stuff like this.
Don’t get me wrong, I support the cause of Taiwanese independence, but facts are facts. I also think that the Basque Country should be independent, and yet it would be factually incorrect to claim that it’s a country.
If you define "country" as being an entity recognised as a country by some percentage of other countries, then sure, you'd exclude Taiwan. But Wikipedia worked out pretty quickly that this is a terrible definition when a thousand microstates all recognised each other but didn't recognise any "actual countries", and then claimed that Belgium no longer existed. So instead they use a policy of "does this geopolitical entity operate in the way that humans typically understand countries to operate". Taiwan passes that check.
That being said, I imagine that if for the US the issue is so important as to repeatedly send their warships all the way to the South China Sea for it, trying to exercise some influence over the content of a wiki page would be quite a low-hanging fruit in comparison.
Read the wiki page on hunter biden.
Are you also upset that they don't have a section on the Earth page saying the world might be flat?
[0] https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/io/news/wikipedia-part-one
"the sky is green" , is obviously not likely to be accepted by many people.
'In his science fiction story foobarbaz written in 2002, John Smith asked: What if people said "The Sky Is Green"?' In this case, we can agree that the story is written, we can look it up in the library. (I made up the title in this case).
NPOV and consensus intersect here: Consensus is reached when no-one disagrees, and NPOV is defined as a point of view that no one could possibly disagree with.
On a serious note, this is very well put. It's the nature of language to lean toward a direction.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-fac...
No, it will tend towards the side of those who has the most admin rights and most time for reverts. They will have no interest in neutrality