This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
| This is a Wikipedia
user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Valjean/Unbrainwash_NOT. |
It is not our job to "un-brainwash the masses.
You write: "we must be non-neutral if the sources are non-neutral". That's not only a misunderstanding of NPOV, it's a misleading caricature of those you don't agree with. We must be neutral in the way we document how non-neutral sources (IOW most sources) describe things. That means we do not interfere with, especially by neutering, what a source says. We present it, warts, biases, and all. Describing and documenting what RS say is not "mindlessly parrot those biases". It reveals editors have not interfered by using their own POV to tweak content. Our opinions of what is a "neutral" position is not reliable. It is much safer to examine the POV of a RS and then try to accurately convey that POV into the article. If the opinion is a widely-held factual opinion, then we can do it in wikivoice.
When opinions are clearly factual, and the opposing views are fringe ones pushed mostly by unreliable sources, we state the facts and ignore the fringe by giving the fringe the type of weight it deserves, which, in some cases, means no mention at all. Framing factual opinions as mere "opinions" poisons the well and serves to undermine the factual nature of the content. Such improper framing is a false balance that implies that facts are mere opinions that can be ignored at will (when they should be accepted as facts), and it frames debunked conspiracy theories as factual and worthy of consideration. It opens the door to BS. Wikipedia should not be used to "un-brainwash the masses". Instead, we inform the masses about attempts to brainwash them, and we use RS to do that.
In the East-West political conflicts, that means the sources in Western democracies, where there is an uncensored free press, have more due weight, and can be trusted much more (but not blindly), than censored sources under the control of dictatorial states like Russia, Turkey, and Syria, where state censorship and killing of journalists is the norm. Anti-American, pro-Russian, anti-Ukraine apologists and propagandists are unreliable sources. Their narratives and POV are false propaganda that we constantly expose here, and editors need to get their own POV into line with the facts documented by RS and stop defending unreliable sources like The Grayzone and those associated with Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and Useful Idiots (podcast). -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)