How propaganda works vs. how Wikilawyers think propaganda works

[Philomath]

Wikipedia, correctly, labels the Russian state media outlet RT as "propaganda". However, it does not label a single western-government-funded outlet thusly. In fact, many US-government funded outlets are cited as objective, reliable sources to dismiss critics of US foreign policy! Can you imagine Russian state media being cited to dismiss a critic of Putin?

One reason this happens is that most Wikipedians, even (especially?) those focused on political topics, are propaganda-illiterate. They don't know what propaganda is, and tend to think that it's mostly non-existent in the western world. While there are definitely individuals on Wikipedia consciously pushing government narratives, I do believe that most editors are operating in good faith, and are simply ignorant useful idiots who don't even know that they're being played like a piano key. I've been thinking about this for the past few days, and I've reached a couple of conclusions that I think merit discussion:

1) The biggest misunderstanding about propaganda is that it is requires an active message. It does not. There is propaganda by commission (an article that heaps excessive praise on a government official, or intentionally promotes a misleading narrative). Then, there is propaganda by omission. This is the type of propaganda that permeates western media. There are staggeringly huge, fruitful areas of public & potential journalistic interest that are simply...not discussed in American media. Ever. Ever. Except to dismiss them as "conspiracy theories", "pro-Russian narratives", or some other bullshit.

Propaganda by omission is thoroughly and exceptionally well-analyzed in Noam Chomsky's book "Manufacturing Consent". The book actually describes how Wikipedia works, quite accurately, 15 years before its inception. If you haven't read it, I highly, highly encourage you to do so.

I think most people here know exactly what I'm talking about, but if anyone is confused about what I mean by "propaganda by omission", I'm happy to provide specific examples. For the sake of brevity, though, on to point #2.

2) There is not an obvious solution to propaganda by omission. If the media steadfastly and uniformly ignores certain issues, it's as if they don't exist. If the media repeats only one point of view (the one that coincidentally aligns with the interests of the US government), it is as if other points of view do not exist, even if they are well-documented in independent media and self-published commentary from respected journalists. Then, the Wikipedia article repeats only the establishment point of view, in Wikivoice, as if it were a fact. Because, as far as "reliability" and "verifiability" go, the propagandistic assertions of the establishment media are facts, as Wikipedia defines a fact as an "uncontested assertion". Basically, if the establishment media says something, and isn't directly, word-for-word contradicted by other establishment media, that "something" becomes a literal, empirical fact.

The topic for discussion is this: how can a future project, like Justapedia, construct its sourcing and verifiability policies to make it more resilient to propaganda by omission than WIkipedia?

How can Justapedia avoid dumpster fires like "The Grayzone"'s Wikipedia article, which was recently criticized here, beginning at 55:30: https://rumble.com/v33nemd-system-update-121.html.

How can propaganda by omission be excluded from a neutral encyclopedia without engaging in OR? Should there be more lax sourcing requirements, such that modern independent media is given equal or greater weight than legacy media? Should there be tighter sourcing requirements, such that government-funded outlets are all deprecated on political topics? Even then, that would only solve part of the problem, since corporate interests lead supposedly non-governmental outlets to parrot government talking points with almost perfect fidelity.

I have some thoughts/ideas, but this post is long enough. I want to hear your thoughts, suckers.

[Bbb23sucks]

How can propaganda by omission be excluded from a neutral encyclopedia without engaging in OR?

I think Wikipedia's insane, sociopathic fear of any form of "original research" is an issue in itself that leads to insane squabbles like this and this. I think our theoretical online encyclopedia should relax rules on "original research" and focus more on auditing it and ensuring the impartiality and objectiveness of the information and that the contributor(s) are well-aquatinted with the subject and not out to push their own (or others) views.

Should there be tighter sourcing requirements, such that government-funded outlets are all deprecated on political topics? Even then, that would only solve part of the problem, since corporate interests lead supposedly non-governmental outlets to parrot government talking points with almost perfect fidelity.

I think part of the solution would be to recognize that everyone and every outlet has bias. Sure, some people and some sources are more biased than other, but that doesn't mean that they do not often provide valuable information. I think recognizing these facts would be a lot more effective than retaining insane and arbitrary lists of "good" and "bad" that lead to massive infighting, rejection of valuable information from "biased" sources, and spreading of propaganda from "unbiased" sources.

I have some thoughts/ideas, but this post is long enough.

No. Please post it here. We're perfectly happy with reading long posts as long as they're actually readable and not 50-page screeds about personal issues on Wikipedia.

PS: I'd recommend editing your post to clarify that you were referring to Wikipedia's article on The Grayzone and not The Grayzone itself.

[Philomath]

I tend to agree with you - a theoretical Wiki-replacement should have looser sourcing requirements for politics. In fact, if I were the czar of Wikipedia, I would un-deprecate every single news source, and probably change every single "green" news source to "yellow", to signify that we should never feel that we have a green light to repeat contestable political claims in an encyclopedia uncritically. I'd also permit, and encourage, the use of new media, like independent news on YouTube, Rumble, Twitter, self-published commentary on Substack, and so forth. There'd have to be some standard, so that a random person couldn't just Tweet something and immediately add it to the encyclopedia. But if we're going to document political opinions in the encyclopedia, an array of opinions as broadly-representative of humanity as possible is better than only presenting the opinions that well-connected western elites deem worthy of note.

But I also think it should have much greater requirements for the use of Wikivoice when making descriptive political claims.

One problem I've been working through for a while is the conflation of scientific standards of truth and fact with political reporting standards of truth and fact. People on Wikipedia treat an eyebrow-raising political opinion from a random "reliable source", uttered in declarative form, as having the same truth value as a scientific analysis of the material world. A conclusion reached from a series of scientific studies of a material phenomenon, which have not been contradicted by other scientific studies, can probably be treated, conditionally, as a fact. A conclusion reached from a series of establishment media outlets saying shit, on the other hand, should not be treated as a fact in the same way.

Currently, the two (scientific sources and political sources) are given similar weight, which is one way that very...interesting...claims about politics end up in Wikivoice. It's also why attempting to rewrite those claims by using in-text attribution, rather than Wikivoice, leads to accusations from the useful idiots of "whitewashing the facts" and invites comparisons to "flat earth" or "young-earth creationism". It's absolute foolishness, and anyone standing outside of the bubble can see it, but I can see how well-intentioned but uncritical editors end up reaching these idiotic conclusions. They're the logical conclusions of dumb policies.

There are unique standards for medical sources on Wikipedia ("MEDRS"). I think there should also be unique standards for sources that pertain to politics and current events. This would acknowledge the fact that CNN writing something vague and unprovable but disparaging about a critic of US foreign policy is not in the same epistemic realm as a scientist describing the result of a meta-analysis of 6 studies in the journal Nature. They may both be "reliable", but not in the same way or for the same things.

[Bbb23sucks]

I tend to agree with you - a theoretical Wiki-replacement should have looser sourcing requirements for politics. In fact, if I were the czar of Wikipedia, I would un-deprecate every single news source, and probably change every single "green" news source to "yellow", to signify that we should never feel that we have a green light to repeat contestable political claims in an encyclopedia uncritically. I'd also permit, and encourage, the use of new media, like independent news on YouTube, Rumble, Twitter, self-published commentary on Substack, and so forth. There'd have to be some standard, so that a random person couldn't just Tweet something and immediately add it to the encyclopedia. But if we're going to document political opinions in the encyclopedia, an array of opinions as broadly-representative of humanity as possible is better than only presenting the opinions that well-connected western elites deem worthy of note.

100% agree. Though, to clarify, it should not just re-iterate claims. An ideal encyclopedia would take analysis and reporting from many (biased) sources and come up with a common sense narrative, even if some "reliable" sources disagree with parts of that narrative.

But I also think it should have much greater requirements for the use of Wikivoice when making descriptive political claims.

Yes.

One problem I've been working through for a while is the conflation of scientific standards of truth and fact with political reporting standards of truth and fact. People on Wikipedia treat an eyebrow-raising political opinion from a random "reliable source", uttered in declarative form, as having the same truth value as a scientific analysis of the material world. A conclusion reached from a series of scientific studies of a material phenomenon, which have not been contradicted by other scientific studies, can probably be treated, conditionally, as a fact. A conclusion reached from a series of establishment media outlets saying shit, on the other hand, should not be treated as a fact in the same way.

I very much agree. While this especially apparent on Wikipedia, I'd say this is a wider problem with (propaganda-conditioned) society. People and news outlets will believe things that are physically impossible and obviously false just because a big corporation, media outlet, government, rich person, famous scientist believes in it. I mean just look at how many people believed in the patent nonsense scams Elon Musk has spewed out for the last ten years.

There are unique standards for medical sources on Wikipedia ("MEDRS"). I think there should also be unique standards for sources that pertain to politics and current events. This would acknowledge the fact that CNN writing something vague and unprovable but disparaging about a critic of US foreign policy is not in the same epistemic realm as a scientist describing the result of a meta-analysis of 6 studies in the journal Nature.

Absolutely.

[RetroidHooman]

I would say relaxed sourcing requirement with the caveat that the language of the article should be more strictly policed.

Completely avoiding bias is not possible no matter how hard you try, so I've always thought we should stick to the next best thing. The next best thing is what Larry Sanger has said the NPOV was supposed to be in the first place: presentation of as many perspectives on a subject as possible, including fringe ideas, without selective disparaging.

[Philomath]

Yes, I'm a proponent of Larry Sanger-style neutrality, rather than Wikipedia "neutrality", which is a joke.

Here's an interesting case study: look at the WP:NPOV page's edit history. Start at the beginning, and look at the diffs. I clicked on one diff every 3-6 months through the history of the page. NPOV from, say, 2004, is a breath of fresh air. It makes so much more sense than the current NPOV policy, I'm baffled that it morphed into what it is today.

I don't think NPOV's evolution happened by accident, nor do I think it was the result of useful idiots, or, as I'm fond of calling them, NPC drones. NPCs follow policies. They don't think about them, much less rewrite them. I intend to identify who, specifically, is responsible for the degradation of the neutrality principle on Wikipedia.

One name that keeps coming up in my research is Valjean. He brags about his fingerprints being visible in WP's core policies, and has the Orwellian quote "verifiability is truth" on his userpage. He also wrote the essay YESPOV, if I remember correctly. Every once in a while, he makes a snide remark to me and threatens to get me banned. Time to search WPO and this forum to see if anyone else has discussed his activities.

[Bbb23sucks]

One name that keeps coming up in my research is Valjean. He brags about his fingerprints being visible in WP's core policies, and has the Orwellian quote "verifiability is truth" on his userpage. He also wrote the essay YESPOV, if I remember correctly. Every once in a while, he makes a snide remark to me and threatens to get me banned. Time to search WPO and this forum to see if anyone else has discussed his activities.

https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... f=19&t=836

[Philomath]

Wow, I did not know most of that. I didn't know his older username, and I didn't know his identity. This is good information, thank you.

As was self-evident from his political essays on Wikipedia, I can see that he has no relevant expertise that would allow him to speak with authority about politics, which he does regularly. He even wrote me an essay on my talk page once, to "explain" the left/right dichotomy to me.

If one of my university students turned that essay in to me in a 100-level political science class, it would receive maybe a C+ at best. If it was a 200+ class, it'd be an F. "Skeptics" like him should be a lot more skeptical about what they themselves believe, rather than using "skepticism" as a pretext for dunking on what other people believe. It's quite infuriating to get lectured by morons about the topic I've dedicated my entire life to studying obsessively. It's as absurd as me trying to lecture him about physical therapy.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the changes to NPOV are one of the core reasons why Wikipedia has gone downhill. Remember, Wikipedia started with a very good neutrality principle, crafted by Sanger. It's been corrupted over the years due to nitwits like Paul Lee. How could Justapedia (or any theoretical Wiki-replacement) make sure that common sense neutrality principles don't get corrupted by these types of people, the way they were corrupted on Wikipedia?

[Bbb23sucks]

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the changes to NPOV are one of the core reasons why Wikipedia has gone downhill. Remember, Wikipedia started with a very good neutrality principle, crafted by Sanger. It's been corrupted over the years due to nitwits like Paul Lee. How could Justapedia (or any theoretical Wiki-replacement) make sure that common sense neutrality principles don't get corrupted by these types of people, the way they were corrupted on Wikipedia?

In content, maybe. But Wikipedia has been fundamentally broken from the start in many other ways.

[Philomath]

Agreed. I'm having a hard time remembering who is who across different websites: are you active on Justapedia?