4 ms·

You ask your readers to believe that academia, the mainstream media and Wikipedia all have the same bias. An alternative hypothesis is that A) all three have al

You ask your readers to believe that academia, the mainstream media and Wikipedia all have the same bias. An alternative hypothesis is that A) all three have albeit imperfect self correction mechanisms and are on average as close to reflecting reality as any human enterprises have ever come, and B) it is not their bias but rather yours that is responsible for your claim. At the very least it seems disingenuous to abstain from naming the bias you claim all three have.

Karunamon 9y ago
Let's unpack this: * Academia does have a left leaning bias. http://theconversation.com/yes-academics-tend-to-be-left-wing-but-lets-not-exaggerate-it-74093* http://theconversation.com/yes-academics-tend-to-be-left-win... https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/new-analysis-new-england-colleges-responsible-left-leaning-professoriate* https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/new-analysis-... (and others - I can find very little that actually challenges the belief) * The mainstream media has a left-leaning, status quo, (and as used in Wikipedia) American bias https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/27/dear-mainstream-media-why-so-liberal/?utm_term=.1ec1ff06056f* https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/... http://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06/the-american-journalist/* http://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06/the-american-journalist... Given that Wikipedia has, as enforced policy, that mainstream media and academic sources trump all else, it logically must share the same bias as its sources. This is even acknowledged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Consensus_and_the_.22hive_mind.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Consens... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias It's not like I'm making some accusation of conspiracy or malfeasance here, so there's no need to interpret it as an attack. This is simply the way the site and its user base operates given its current policies. If the media is getting something wrong, Wikipedia will necessarily get it wrong. If the Academic community is getting something wrong, Wikipedia will necessarily get it wrong. The reason I speak of these disparate groups as wholes is that, on Wikipedia, consensus determines what an article says, what gets relegated to a "criticism" section, and what can't be said at all. (Arguably, the biases of the editors will win over the actual state of the sources, but this is just my read on the policy) This is one of the downsides of acting as a tertiary source alone: you're only as good as your secondaries and primaries I then extend this inference out to this new project. It has the same people at the helm, will likely attract the same group of editors, and so it will share the same problems as Wikipedia proper.
- yesenadam 9y ago
  A small point.. What is called "left-leaning" in the U.S. looks right-leaning to most of the world. [source?] Supporting one (the less far-right one) of the two main business parties gets you called "left-leaning". Supporting health care apparently gets you called a communist! That seemed everyday opinion in the U.S. - it seemed absolute appalling idiocy to the world looking on. Up there with "freedom fries" etc. "The centre" I guess then falls somewhere halfway between a primetime news anchor and their right wing thinktank guest.
viridian 9y ago
I think we have the stats to show that your A) is false, if nothing else. Consider the fact that in the social sciences, about 18 percent of American professors are communists, and about 5 percent are conservatives[1]. In general, conservatives are outnumbered as faculty about 12 to 1 by liberals [2]. In order for these numbers to be "as close to reflecting reality as any human enterprises have ever come", we would expect America to have 12 liberal voters for each conservative, and the Democratic Socialists of America to be the second most powerful political party, while the republicans would struggle to maintain a distant third place. I won't label you with titles like 'biased' or 'disingenuous' however, because I find that rude and counterproductive to finding the truth. [1] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.147.6141&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.147... [2] https://econjwatch.org/articles/faculty-voter-registration-in-economics-history-journalism-communications-law-and-psychology https://econjwatch.org/articles/faculty-voter-registration-i...
- mkstowegnv 9y ago
  My claim A is that academia/media/wikipedia are the best tools we have for arriving at what will be seen as the truth by the most people for the longest time into the future. You claim that A is false because the three are more likely to be influenced by persons who self identify as left leaning. Never mind that what is considered left and right has changed through history and varies around the world at the present. Never mind that liberals are anything but monolithic in their views and there is as much enmity between liberals as there is between liberals and conservatives. What I find rude is the implication that 'left' institutions can't be useful authorities because they are 'left'. Why is conservapedia utterly eclipsed by wikipedia? Because wikipedia's self correcting mechanisms on the whole work pretty well and produce something that most people find useful (cf Dawkins https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/2/4173576/richard-dawkins-on-science-it-works-bitches https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/2/4173576/richard-dawkins-on...)
  - viridian 9y ago
    >You claim that A is false because the three are more likely to be influenced by persons who self identify as left leaning. I think we misunderstand each other. I claimed that A was false because I took "are on average as close to reflecting reality as any human enterprises have ever come" to mean it reflects the reality of the body of individuals, which I guess both of us agree is not the case. I don't think we really disagree on that much then. For fun though, I'd like to point out that this applies to conservatives, too: "Never mind that liberals are anything but monolithic in their views and there is as much enmity between liberals as there is between liberals and conservatives." And also conservapedia is a failure because A) Shaffly is an authoritarian nutcase and B) vandals outnumbered serious posters 2:1 easily, since it's inception. I know this because I was one of those vandals back in my script kiddie 4chan days. They would sometimes just have to revert entire days worth of edits because for every 'good faith' edit there were a dozen there were less so, and often the difference is subtle, especially since you could invoke religious craziness at will on conservapedia.

Karunamon 9y ago

Let's unpack this: * Academia does have a left leaning bias. http://theconversation.com/yes-academics-tend-to-be-left-wing-but-lets-not-exaggerate-it-74093* http://theconversation.com/yes-academics-tend-to-be-left-win... https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/new-analysis-new-england-colleges-responsible-left-leaning-professoriate* https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/new-analysis-... (and others - I can find very little that actually challenges the belief) * The mainstream media has a left-leaning, status quo, (and as used in Wikipedia) American bias https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/27/dear-mainstream-media-why-so-liberal/?utm_term=.1ec1ff06056f* https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/... http://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06/the-american-journalist/* http://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06/the-american-journalist... Given that Wikipedia has, as enforced policy, that mainstream media and academic sources trump all else, it logically must share the same bias as its sources. This is even acknowledged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Consensus_and_the_.22hive_mind.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Consens... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias It's not like I'm making some accusation of conspiracy or malfeasance here, so there's no need to interpret it as an attack. This is simply the way the site and its user base operates given its current policies. If the media is getting something wrong, Wikipedia will necessarily get it wrong. If the Academic community is getting something wrong, Wikipedia will necessarily get it wrong. The reason I speak of these disparate groups as wholes is that, on Wikipedia, consensus determines what an article says, what gets relegated to a "criticism" section, and what can't be said at all. (Arguably, the biases of the editors will win over the actual state of the sources, but this is just my read on the policy) This is one of the downsides of acting as a tertiary source alone: you're only as good as your secondaries and primaries I then extend this inference out to this new project. It has the same people at the helm, will likely attract the same group of editors, and so it will share the same problems as Wikipedia proper.

yesenadam 9y ago
A small point.. What is called "left-leaning" in the U.S. looks right-leaning to most of the world. [source?] Supporting one (the less far-right one) of the two main business parties gets you called "left-leaning". Supporting health care apparently gets you called a communist! That seemed everyday opinion in the U.S. - it seemed absolute appalling idiocy to the world looking on. Up there with "freedom fries" etc. "The centre" I guess then falls somewhere halfway between a primetime news anchor and their right wing thinktank guest.

viridian 9y ago

I think we have the stats to show that your A) is false, if nothing else. Consider the fact that in the social sciences, about 18 percent of American professors are communists, and about 5 percent are conservatives[1]. In general, conservatives are outnumbered as faculty about 12 to 1 by liberals [2]. In order for these numbers to be "as close to reflecting reality as any human enterprises have ever come", we would expect America to have 12 liberal voters for each conservative, and the Democratic Socialists of America to be the second most powerful political party, while the republicans would struggle to maintain a distant third place. I won't label you with titles like 'biased' or 'disingenuous' however, because I find that rude and counterproductive to finding the truth. [1] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.147.6141&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.147... [2] https://econjwatch.org/articles/faculty-voter-registration-in-economics-history-journalism-communications-law-and-psychology https://econjwatch.org/articles/faculty-voter-registration-i...

mkstowegnv 9y ago
My claim A is that academia/media/wikipedia are the best tools we have for arriving at what will be seen as the truth by the most people for the longest time into the future. You claim that A is false because the three are more likely to be influenced by persons who self identify as left leaning. Never mind that what is considered left and right has changed through history and varies around the world at the present. Never mind that liberals are anything but monolithic in their views and there is as much enmity between liberals as there is between liberals and conservatives. What I find rude is the implication that 'left' institutions can't be useful authorities because they are 'left'. Why is conservapedia utterly eclipsed by wikipedia? Because wikipedia's self correcting mechanisms on the whole work pretty well and produce something that most people find useful (cf Dawkins https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/2/4173576/richard-dawkins-on-science-it-works-bitches https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/2/4173576/richard-dawkins-on...)
- viridian 9y ago
  >You claim that A is false because the three are more likely to be influenced by persons who self identify as left leaning. I think we misunderstand each other. I claimed that A was false because I took "are on average as close to reflecting reality as any human enterprises have ever come" to mean it reflects the reality of the body of individuals, which I guess both of us agree is not the case. I don't think we really disagree on that much then. For fun though, I'd like to point out that this applies to conservatives, too: "Never mind that liberals are anything but monolithic in their views and there is as much enmity between liberals as there is between liberals and conservatives." And also conservapedia is a failure because A) Shaffly is an authoritarian nutcase and B) vandals outnumbered serious posters 2:1 easily, since it's inception. I know this because I was one of those vandals back in my script kiddie 4chan days. They would sometimes just have to revert entire days worth of edits because for every 'good faith' edit there were a dozen there were less so, and often the difference is subtle, especially since you could invoke religious craziness at will on conservapedia.