[glanzwulf]

Well, questionable original source aside, just went on a rabbithole in wikipedia reading about it. Or do you consider wikipedia also propagandist?

[mateuszf]

I'm not saying that the article is untrue. I'm not a historian. What I'm saying is that all content from this source should be treated with high skepticism.

[tetromino_]

Many English Wikipedia articles about Eastern European history are propaganda from one of the sides. In some cases it's a deliberate effort by irredentist editors from whichever country to push their cause; in other cases, it's a result of editors from outside the region who can't read any of the the relevant languages and therefore don't understand that they are using biased sources uncritically.

[brazzy]

Wikipedia absolutely can be propagandist. It's an incredibly attractive target for propagandists trying to insert their views and spins, and while the community generally manages to keep a rein on that for topic that get international attention, those which don't can be effectively captured by coordinated groups. To say nothing about the smaller international Wikipedias.

[oneshtein]

Wikipedia is extremely good at keeping and reinforcing a most popular point of view. Russians are using Wikipedia a lot, for example.

[consilient]

> Or do you consider wikipedia also propagandist?

The Wikimedia Foundation itself is not, but there are absolutely cliques of editors pushing propaganda.

[ajuc]

The battle happened, there's no doubt. I agree TVP is biased as f. tho. Think Fox News if Trump was in power and Fox was state media.