World News

34956 readers

466 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

automodbeta@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

Wikipedia Entries Manipulated In Line With Iran’s Propaganda (www.iranintl.com)

submitted 2 years ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

This is clever propaganda. This article uses the Sunday Times, a UK publication as it's actual news and the rest is opinion or unsubstantiated thought. The Times article is saying how Wikipedia encourages Iranian change. Wikipedia does an excellent job of self regulating political content, as seen by many other contested political articles, and Iran is no different.

This is Zionist Nationalism pushing UK articles that back their messaging of "Attack Iran" while Israel is currently peak aggro, seemingly as a distraction (using Houthi ties and red sea activity as justification). It's a garbage article and not worth the time. Wikipedia does a good job of being neutral and this article is big mad at them for not pushing the Zionist propaganda.

[+] Haagel@lemmings.world -8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

This is why I find Wikipedia problematic. Anyone can change an entry and if enough people work together they can change it permanently and resist efforts to change it back. It seems inevitable to me that it will lose integrity over time.

I'd love for someone to convince me otherwise, though...

[–] antidote101@lemmy.world 37 points 2 years ago

This is why I find Wikipedia problematic. Anyone can change an entry

No they can't. Many articles are locked, there's degrees of locking. Also, there's a hierarchy where the community, specific notice boards, administrators, or just an uninvolved editor can be brought in to help adjudicate an editorial dispute.

....and all this is not to mention the many policies that guide editors to keep Wikipedia journalistic.

It's set up to resist a loss of integrity. Case in point, this article. Do you think moderators and admins left the Iranian editors changes in place. No, they were discovered for a reason - probably by the wider community using Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and means of resolution.

[–] anamethatisnt@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

In some circumstances, pages may need to be protected from modification by certain groups of editors. Pages are protected when a specific damaging event has been identified that cannot be prevented through other means such as a block.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy

edit: also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_on_Wikipedia

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 12 points 2 years ago

So it's actually a lot better than it might appear - they're obviously familiar with what happens when anyone can edit an article on a contentious topic, and it would be a massive shit-show if it was as simple as "whoever's most stubborn at changing the topic to be the way they want it wins." I've been involved with editing a controversial topic, and I can say that as long as it's something that enough people care about, the system actually does produce something pretty close to an unbiased view.

There's a whole set of rules and guidelines, including some specifically for this situation, and there's a whole set of remedies with a gradual escalation, up from just getting other people involved to talk about things, all the way to IP or user-account blocking and banning if people don't follow what the rules are supposed to be.

I think where the system is lacking is for situations like this where someone's making edits "under the radar"; where it's a topic that not a lot of people care about, or where their edits are subtle enough that no one really recognizes that they're coming with a particular agenda. But in general, it's quite a good system which is the only reason Wikipedia isn't a big 4chan-esque vote-rigging dumpster fire.