3 ms·
This ignores the problem of bias by ommission, where an editor merely doesn't include something that goes against their bias. This is impossible to solve with s
by syrrim 8y ago
This ignores the problem of bias by ommission, where an editor merely doesn't include something that goes against their bias. This is impossible to solve with sources because editors still need to be able to choose to ignore something they see as unimportant.
It also ignores that the degree to which a sources "credibility" derives from your agreement with it, and therefore its political bias. When a source you agree with says something wrong, this is seen as an honest mistake, but when you disagree with them, it acts as a tarnish on their credibility forever more. Wikipedia editors can use "credibility" to prevent others from correcting their ommissions.
- throwaway5752 8y agoCredibility is earned and lost. Question if this article would happen if the source material was Alex Jones/Infowars. There would not be an article about "British politics bias" there. It's noteworthy if they concede that there aren't sinister forces trying to steal your precious bodily fluids. The only reason the posted article exists and that we are having this thread is that Wikipedia takes pains to be unbiased and has some expectations of being so by reputation.