3 ms·

> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source anymore. They seems to have become a Islamist and left propaganda machine I do think that needs some stronger sourcing. It

> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source anymore. They seems to have become a Islamist and left propaganda machine I do think that needs some stronger sourcing. It is one thing to argue that certain wiki articles have some bias or the other, but a categorical claim that it is an Islamist and left propaganda machine seems rather bizarre at first cut. At the moment these claims seem to be supported by some random tweets?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
drieddust 6y ago
Did you look at the details in those tweets? They further refer to original source material.
pritambarhate 6y ago
Wikipedia article for Siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568)[1] to quote: >> Rising pillars of smoke soon signalled the rite of jauhar as the Rajputs killed their families and prepared to die in a supreme sacrifice. In a day filled with hand-to-hand struggles until virtually all the defenders died. The Mughal troops slaughtered another 20-25,000 ordinary persons, inhabitants of the town and peasants from the surrounding area on the grounds that they had actively helped in the resistance. — John F. Richards, The Mughal Empire[8] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Chittorgarh_(1567%E2%80%931568)#:~:text=On%2023%20February%201568%2C%20Akbar,die%20in%20a%20supreme%20sacrifice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Chittorgarh_(1567%E2%....
boogies 6y ago
> > Wikipedia isn't a reliable source anymore. They seems to have become a Islamist and left propaganda machine > I do think that needs some stronger sourcing. Academic study, showing leftist bias: https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britannica-but-dont-blame-the-crowd https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britan... > Greenstein and Zhu borrowed this taxonomy of partisan terms and counted their use in pairs of Wikipedia and Britannica articles on the same subject. They calculated bias as the absolute difference between the number of Democratic terms and the number of Republican ones. For example, if an article contained 10 terms associated with Democrats and only three associated with Republicans, its bias score would be seven. > They found that Wikipedia is significantly more biased than Britannica by this measure, and a bit more left-leaning. And a co-founder’s perspective: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ > Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.
- srean 6y ago
  > Academic study, showing leftist bias says rightwing mouthpieces.
  - boogies 6y ago
    When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
drieddust 6y ago
I have updated my comment to include the original sources. I included the tweets because I first I learned from them.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

drieddust 6y ago

Did you look at the details in those tweets? They further refer to original source material.

pritambarhate 6y ago

Wikipedia article for Siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568)[1] to quote: >> Rising pillars of smoke soon signalled the rite of jauhar as the Rajputs killed their families and prepared to die in a supreme sacrifice. In a day filled with hand-to-hand struggles until virtually all the defenders died. The Mughal troops slaughtered another 20-25,000 ordinary persons, inhabitants of the town and peasants from the surrounding area on the grounds that they had actively helped in the resistance. — John F. Richards, The Mughal Empire[8] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Chittorgarh_(1567%E2%80%931568)#:~:text=On%2023%20February%201568%2C%20Akbar,die%20in%20a%20supreme%20sacrifice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Chittorgarh_(1567%E2%....

boogies 6y ago

> > Wikipedia isn't a reliable source anymore. They seems to have become a Islamist and left propaganda machine > I do think that needs some stronger sourcing. Academic study, showing leftist bias: https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britannica-but-dont-blame-the-crowd https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britan... > Greenstein and Zhu borrowed this taxonomy of partisan terms and counted their use in pairs of Wikipedia and Britannica articles on the same subject. They calculated bias as the absolute difference between the number of Democratic terms and the number of Republican ones. For example, if an article contained 10 terms associated with Democrats and only three associated with Republicans, its bias score would be seven. > They found that Wikipedia is significantly more biased than Britannica by this measure, and a bit more left-leaning. And a co-founder’s perspective: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ > Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.

srean 6y ago
> Academic study, showing leftist bias says rightwing mouthpieces.
- boogies 6y ago
  When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

drieddust 6y ago

I have updated my comment to include the original sources. I included the tweets because I first I learned from them.