3 ms·
>Wikipedia articles have become quite biased in the past years. don't know why OP is getting downvoted because this reflects my observation as well i trace th
by osipov 11y ago
>Wikipedia articles have become quite biased in the past years.
don't know why OP is getting downvoted because this reflects my observation as well
i trace the systemic bias in wikipedia to an equivalent bias in the English language media and wikipedia's policy of reliable sources. the latter is a doubly edged sword that keeps out the crackpots but also ignores reasoned dissenting voices that come from outside the corporate media circle.
- schoen 11y agoMaybe people were offended that someone would criticize Wikipedia in this way in the context of news about censorship against it, the idea being that it's rude to bring up problems with a site's content just as the site is about to be censored. Personally I think problems of bias on Wikipedia are an interesting issue that can be hard to deal with, because many Wikipedians have assumed that the elaborately-worked out policies about point of view, reliable sources, and citations have already addressed this. But maybe in many contexts these policies don't work well or don't achieve their goals well (and there are lots of ways that could be so, some of which are already identified within the Wikipedia community but not necessarily solved). I assume the downvotes have to do with the implication that it's legitimate to block Internet content that is biased, rather than with the assertion that Wikipedia content is sometimes or increasingly biased.