I think that this case is so complicated that the admin or the steward
sometimes are not prepared to face a big problem like this.

They evaluate two opinions without having a background to define what is
true and what is not. In this case the evaluation can be not neutral.

Anyways the bias us present in all several Wikipedias and not only in
Croatian mainly if it concerns the history of the area around Croatia.

It's a pity that still now, after long time, someone us reporting the same
problem. I would know personally what is the problem.

Kind regards

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, 12:38 stjn <ole.y...@gmail.com wrote:

> This mailing list is usually positive, but we need to talk about
> something rotten. I was linked to this Meta RfC by my Russian colleague:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Administrator_abuse_on_the_Croatian_Wikipedia
>
> The author and commentators, with notable evidence, allege that admins
> and editors on Croatian Wikipedia are biased in favour of far-right
> denialist talking points, especially in regards to World War II, and use
> their rights to continue this type of deal. From my further readings,
> the problems in Croatian Wikipedia exist for a long time with the same
> participating actors. This RfC exists for 2 years already without any
> signs of notice from the WMF or Meta stewards, all while nothing is
> changing and the local press is continuing to report about this (maybe
> authors should get American coverage to get any support, though). What
> exactly is the course of action on this and what has already been done
> in regards to this by Meta stewards or WMF?
>
> Editors have tried to sound their alarms via different means:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=857974834#2013_controversy_about_right-wing_bias
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_231#On_the_state_of_Croatian_Wikipedia
>
> Support of extremist viewpoints should be the most pressing issue for
> Wikimedians, as we must recognise that our articles have consequences,
> and unabashed defence of Nazis in Wikipedia in one of the official
> languages of the EU is a big deal. I personally had to organise with
> others before to remove genuine jihadist view points from being reported
> as facts in one of Wikipedias (successfully), in the last year I also
> had to report to one steward that admin in one Wikipedia was deleting
> all (seemingly not bad) content in regards to LGBT without any
> explanation (unsuccessfully).
>
> Every time significant institutional bias towards non-neutral and
> harmful view points goes unnoticed, we poison our readers, especially
> students, and discourage other people from constructive contribution in
> our projects. Perhaps, on the larger point, it is good to talk about
> some kind of committee akin to CoCC that would safely enforce the
> founding principles of our projects, if these issues go unnoticed so much.
>
> I hope that something will be done with this eventually.
>
> Oleg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to