4 ms·
In a post-truth world, we need Wikipedia more than ever
- Chris2048 6y agoThe various processes of WP certainly try harder than many media, but I'd not straight call it neutral. First, disregard the vast amount of neutral content on WP that would otherwise produce a misleading "average" - news media concentrates exclusively on real-life, often political, unusual or exceptional events, so it's easy for an encyclopaedia to remain more objective-on-average given that it also covers a range of un-political factual contents. So, WP articles about real events/places/politics. The first bias is WP has no original research or source of knowledge, it clings to the "notability" of sources and is thus biases by publicly available information, or at least the scope of what its editors can reasonably validate. WP is at best a mirror of current mainstream opinion, an a neutral reporter of what most think, without reference to what's actually true.
- jjeaff 6y agoNot doing their own research is a feature, not a bug. Were they doing their own research, that would be simply one more source in the sea of other sources. Wikipedia can link to various sources and if a contradictory source exists, you can bet it will be brought up and debated. In the end, I suppose it's going to come down to the bias of the moderators, but there is literally nothing that can be done beyond requiring sources and giving all viewpoints a chance to give their opinion.