with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&oldi...
Don't tell me him being antisemitic is such a paramount piece of information that it needs to appear in literally the first sentence.
Any more defensible examples?
My problem with Wikipedia is that some articles are fiercely gatekept by individuals who have clear bias and the community does little about it. A great example of this would be the Alcoholics Anonymous page.
Any time someone tries to add information about the ineffectiveness of AA's all-or-nothing treatment of substance abuse, the abuse/harassment that goes on in groups, the documentary that revealed said abuse and harassment - one of a small handful of accounts, who rarely participate on any other page, immediately revert the edit with a gish-gallop of claimed wikipedia violations.
Now, aside from the fact that reverting edits is supposed to be something of last resort - the reasons they cite for removing stuff strain credulity all the time. For example, they dismiss the documentary because it apparently wasn't screened in enough festivals and theatres. Which...might be a thing (it really isn't), if one were trying to cite it as a source...but you can't even mention the existence of the documentary, a demonstrable fact, without that being shot down as well due to the documentary not meeting their standards for a documentary.
I believe they also cited a wikipedia rule that says that "both sides" type coverage of a subject needs to be proportionate to how mainstream/fringe each "side" is. So by their reasoning: because there aren't many people talking about the problems with AA, the AA article shouldn't have any mention of the problems with AA.
They justify all this by claiming the AA is under "attack" and they are "defending" AA from the evil people (did I mention that AA is closely tied to Christianity?)
Wikipedia is controlled by a very small number of people who use an exhaustive policy manual to justify whatever actions they want to take, defend viewpoints they like and attack those they don't. It's sort of like how US federal and state laws are extensive that just walking to your mailbox, you probably break some sort of law and could be detained by police for it.
That's the core problem. Wikipedia isn't governed by the truth or fact, but by who knows the policy manual best.
Especially when the example is a philosopher and the thing being described is one of their philosophies.
Not at all. The "BRD" policy puts reverting at the centre of the recommended approach to editing.
> Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting
It's bizarre that you think it "puts reverting at the center of the recommended approach to editing" when the policy specifically says it doesn't even encourage reverting.
IME, the majority of edits on WP seem to be reverts. I don't see much evidence of reverting being discouraged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus...
It's an "explanatory supplement" to the Consensus policy. The problem with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is that arguably there are so many of them that you can almost always find one that says what you want it to say. :)
And if not, WP:IAR will do the trick. That, too, is policy:
In fact the article was deleted…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/del...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_right-wing_terrorist...
In other words, there’s a bias in the editors to not make it, but there’s no malicious bias that deleting an actual article would imply.
Someone first moved it to userspace, causing it to become a redirect: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_left...
Which then triggered it’s deletion.
Some things cannot be expressed or explained without political language or terminology because they are inherently political. For what it's worth I think Wikipedia did a great job with that article.
If that's proof of bias is another matter.
Are we reading the same article? It says 'Evola viewed Jews as corrosive' and that he believed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were broadly accurate even if they were fake.
I doubt that scanning a Wikipedia article is sufficient qualification to announce that someone has been confirmed an antisemite or not, but I'm sure victims of antisemitism are grateful for your judgement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan
I'm not trying to underplay what he is saying, but dismissing him in the first sentence on a supposedly neutral article really rubs me the wrong way.
I think you've misunderstood the point of an encyclopedia, personally.
Wiki's intro currently states:
> Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola (19 May 1898 – 11 June 1974), better known as Julius Evola, was an Italian philosopher, poet, and painter whose esoteric worldview featured antisemitic conspiracy theories and the occult. He has been described as a "fascist intellectual", a "radical traditionalist", "antiegalitarian, antiliberal, antidemocratic, and antipopular", and as "the leading philosopher of Europe's neofascist movement".
It does not appear to portray antisemitic beliefs as "the single most important or relevant fact about him". It presents them as an important fact, just as Washington's intro includes slaveholding before moving on to the table of contents.
Ultimately, the relevance is subjective.
I would rather have dinner with a antisemite than a paedophile.
Take https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Gentzen instead; he was an unquestionable Nazi and it’s pretty well documented in the entry, although not central to the article.
Try better
As an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...