3 ms·
This seems like a serious risk, and I'd like to see how the "partisan idioms" were collected. "Illegal aliens" stood out to me as something I don't hear much f
by Bartweiss 10y ago
This seems like a serious risk, and I'd like to see how the "partisan idioms" were collected.
"Illegal aliens" stood out to me as something I don't hear much from either party - the fight today is generally over "illegal immigrants" versus "undocumented immigrants". That looks like an obvious candidate for a marginalized phrase distorting the analysis.
"Death tax" is still around, but I think there's a euphemistic treadmill thing happening - plenty of people on the right will now say "estate tax" and expect it to be understood as a thing they're strongly opposed to.
Finally, the example given seems to be about maturation rather than moderation. "Turbans and terrorists" is rather un-encylopedic, and it would be totally possible to strip it from an article even while preserving a strong conservative bent.
I wouldn't be shocked if these results were right, but it also feels like a sociology paper I wouldn't want to trust without a secondary analysis.
- smsm42 10y ago"Turbans and terrorists" gave me a pause too. Then again, that was in 2006, where Wikipedia was much less prominent than now, which means less editors, so I took a look. If we look at the article at the eve of 2006 it's not "turbans and terrorists" at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afghanistan&oldid=33409879 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afghanistan&oldid... I mean maybe it has some bias, it's quite large so I didn't analyze it, but it's not blatantly bad like WaPo seems to imply. I suspect they fallen the victim of what many journalists fall victim too - concentrating on rare exceptions like some troll putting there "turbans" for lulz and it surviving on the site for some short time - and not on the processes that govern the regular life of the site.