They’re willing to have an article that calls a famine a genocide directed at Ukrainians by the Soviet state, despite it being disproven multiple times and shown that it’s nothing more than nazi propaganda, but refuse to keep an article about a memorial dedicated to an actual atrocity on their site.
Why? Because it’s suddenly against the Western narrative of Ukraine being a peaceful state which never did anything wrong?
Wikipedia tends to maintain a pro-Western line on every hot topic, as explained by its donors and top editors. There are various other topics that are not allowed to have articles on English Wikipedia because they were never covered on mainstream western media and are therefore “of low relevance”.
They’re willing to have an article that calls a famine a genocide directed at Ukrainians by the Soviet state, despite it being disproven multiple times and shown that it’s nothing more than nazi propaganda, but refuse to keep an article about a memorial dedicated to an actual atrocity on their site.
Why? Because it’s suddenly against the Western narrative of Ukraine being a peaceful state which never did anything wrong?
Wikipedia tends to maintain a pro-Western line on every hot topic, as explained by its donors and top editors. There are various other topics that are not allowed to have articles on English Wikipedia because they were never covered on mainstream western media and are therefore “of low relevance”.
Such a absurd excuse. They might aswell just shut down if that’s their standard. OIf course, that’d require them not to be propaganda tools.