In some areas both the German and the English versions are very biased towards the political left spectrum. A famous example is the formerly well-reputated historian Daniel Ganser. As soon as he published politically not so correct findings, his entry was edited to put him into a bad light.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I agree it ended up biased in case of many articles, cannot judge those regarding Daniel Ganser as this is the first time I've heard the name.
However, the original intention was to write it in an unbiased manner, however hard it is. Information is power, no wonder the real Wiki attracts people who want to misuse it to their own benefit, or simply to manipulate potential readers. I've never been a Wikipedist myself, so I only have a vague knowledge about the editting process there.
Anyway, I believe we should aim on providing as unbiased and reliable information as we can on Propolis. Money talks, and there might be pressure to promote/denounce certain tokens/initiatives/witnesses/etc. I would like to make clear that our intention is to avoid such practices.
100% agree on this!!
Ganser has fans on both ends of the political spectrum. I went to read his article on the German Wikipedia and couldn't see any bias in either way. He's criticized a lot, but always with sources, and often as quotes.
I once saw an interview with him and he had not such a neutral view. E.g. he requested that some items in his curriculum get corrected, but the Wikipedia editors insisted on their view. It at least leaves some questions.
He also tried to sue swiss media for calling him a conspiracy theorist. Editors can't cave in to the persons described in the article when they feel like they want to be presented more favorably.
And how is a disagreement about curriculum items connected to left/right-wing politics?
As initially mentioned, my interpretation is that lefties´ Wikipedia try to make him look bad - via biased selection of references. But let´s not go down this rabbit hole. Everybody can can a different view on this and no chance to sort it out without entering a lengthy discussion.
As long as these accusations stay so vague, and seemingly biased by your own political identity, that's very true.
He gets a lot of props in the article for the parts of his work which have merit. He's being called out for the same wild speculation that cost him his reputation and his job, and a lack of distance to the far-right.
I have the slight feeling you base this opinion on the interview and other sources, not the article itself.
Might be.
Sehe ich nicht so.
Wer sich den Wiki-Eintrag von Ganser durchliest, findet keinen einzigen positiven Abschnitt darin. Da ist nichts vage, sondern konkret. Es ist ein durchweg negativer Eintrag, der durchsetzt ist von typischen Schlagworten, die eine Person in Misskredit bringen sollen. Wer das nicht sieht, ist von von seiner "eigenen politischen Identität beeinflusst" und im Steigbügel derer, die Konservative wie Ganser in das "far right"-Lager schieben und dann fordern, er möge sich von seinem eigenen Publikum distanzieren, das ebenfalls rechts wäre.
Wenn man sich den Wiki-Eintrag von Michael Butter anschaut, sieht man auch, warum das so ist.
Wer ein EU-Forschungsprojekt leitet, braucht Forschungsobjekte und wer suchet, der findet. Ganser als erfolgreicher Self-made-man, der seine Karriere bei der ETH dafür aufgegeben hat, dass er sich an das heiße Eisen 9/11 gewagt hat, bezieht im Gegensatz zu Butter, der seine Brötchen mittels des Steuerzahlers erhält, sein Einkommen in der freien Wirtschaft.
Butter gehört zu den scharfen Kritikern Gansers.
Im Prinzip kann man fast die Faustregel erheben, dass wer einen derartig miserablen und einseitigen Wiki-Eintrag hat, ganz besonders interessant ist und seine Publikationen/Auftritte daher Aufmerksamkeit verdienen könnten.
Hier ein sehr sehenswertes Video, zum Thema "Far right" mit Blick auf die Wahlen und Europa. Kann ich nur empfehlen und passt in diesem Zusammenhang, denke ich. Schade, dass wir keine derartig exzellenten Deutschen haben, die ein ähnliches Format haben. Es sei denn, du kennst eins?
The irony :D