Antifa

In-depth evaluation of specific Wikipedia articles.
User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: Antifa

Post by Flip Flopped » Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:49 pm

poko wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:15 pm
The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 11:14 pm
Flip Flopped wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 10:03 pm
It's a good article. Are antifa associated with the Black Bloc or are they separate?
My understanding is they overlap, but aren't interchangeable.
I had thought Antifa is the groups, and "Black Bloc" is a tactic employed by those groups.?
When I've read news reports that nuance isn't apparent, but it makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Just a few months ago some Ph.D. psychologist on Twitter was saying Antifa groups do not exist in any organized form. I guess they haven't sent her a letter on official letterhead, yet. :roll:

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: Antifa

Post by Flip Flopped » Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:50 pm

Kingsindian wrote:
Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:18 am
Flip Flopped wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:17 pm
I wish KI would come over here and discuss this with you. The last time you two did that I got a much clearer view of both your perspectives.
I'll write a more detailed response here, hopefully soon.
I look forward to your writing. Congrats on the blog post from earlier, too.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Antifa

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:58 am

Bobfrombrockley, a self-identified Marxist and supporter of antifa, has made a flurry edits to the article. Curiously, one edit "reducing weight" to an anonymous e-mail involved removing the part that mentions threats of violence. Another edit added "context" by mentioning the February Berkeley protest was targeting Milo Yiannopoulos who Bob describes as an "alt-right speaker" despite that description not being used in the cited source.
Last edited by The Devil's Advocate on Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: Antifa

Post by Flip Flopped » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:14 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:58 am
Bobfrombrockley, a self-identified Marxist and supporter of antifa, has made a flurry edits to the article. Curiously, one edit "reducing weight" to an anonymous e-mail involved removing the part that mentions threats of violence. Another edit added "context" by mentioning the February Berkeley protest was targeting Milo Yiannopoulos who Bob describes as an "alt-right speaker" despite that description not being used in the cited source.
He's been editing since 2006.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Antifa

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:10 am

Censorship! Very misleading edit summary BTW. Makes it seem as if I, the banned editor, consider Breitbart an unreliable source as if that would have any bearing on the matter.

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: Antifa

Post by Flip Flopped » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:20 pm

I didn't read your article as an opinion piece although your perspective is reflected in it. Wikipedia has always had a hard time allowing fair coverage of voices critical of their website.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Antifa

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:10 am

When a Wikipedian says a source presenting a position they don't like is an "opinion piece" you should be skeptical. A big part of news is analysis and focusing on a particular aspect of a story. This often means they advance a position and it is even more the case with modern journalism having become more openly opinionated. Many times I have seen detailed factual analysis by an outlet dismissed as an "opinion piece" as a way to justify its exclusion from Wikipedia. Same with many other arguments, it is applied inconsistently so as to favor the agenda of whoever is using the tactic. Wikipedia policies ostensibly permit using biased or opinionated sources so long as the usual criteria apply. Once more this is a case where Wikipedians do not practice what they preach. Provided a source advances the desired narrative it is allowed no matter how opinionated, but any source that is unfavorable to that narrative gets the "opinion piece" treatment.

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: Antifa

Post by Flip Flopped » Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:07 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:10 am
When a Wikipedian says a source presenting a position they don't like is an "opinion piece" you should be skeptical. A big part of news is analysis and focusing on a particular aspect of a story. This often means they advance a position and it is even more the case with modern journalism having become more openly opinionated. Many times I have seen detailed factual analysis by an outlet dismissed as an "opinion piece" as a way to justify its exclusion from Wikipedia. Same with many other arguments, it is applied inconsistently so as to favor the agenda of whoever is using the tactic. Wikipedia policies ostensibly permit using biased or opinionated sources so long as the usual criteria apply. Once more this is a case where Wikipedians do not practice what they preach. Provided a source advances the desired narrative it is allowed no matter how opinionated, but any source that is unfavorable to that narrative gets the "opinion piece" treatment.
Yes. Aren't the allowed to use opinion pieces in Wikipedia articles as long as they state whose opinion was published?

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Antifa

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:23 pm

I wouldn't consider what I wrote an opinion piece, but of course they are allowed even with Breitbart and we're not even talking about using it in the article itself.

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: Antifa

Post by Flip Flopped » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:31 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:23 pm
I wouldn't consider what I wrote an opinion piece, but of course they are allowed even with Breitbart and we're not even talking about using it in the article itself.
You are getting the un-person treatment.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest