4 ms·

> Even Wikipedia's co-founder agrees Those are some odd examples... On one hand he complains Obama's article doesn't mention the Benghazi Attack, when that's

> Even Wikipedia's co-founder agrees Those are some odd examples... On one hand he complains Obama's article doesn't mention the Benghazi Attack, when that's actually listed as one of the events during his first term. On the other hand Trump's article doesn't mention the 2019 attack against the US embassy in Baghdad. The choice of topics after that doesn't help dispel the notion of the author having a bit of an bias issue himself: Abortion, Jesus (a whole lot of that), global warming and vaccines. It's like a best-of of the deeper ends of American conservative talking points, the only thing missing is 2A and some good old "teach the controversy". Particularly that Jesus part is very difficult for me to take serious: Recognizing that the biblical Jesus is mostly a myth is not "bias", as much as it might offend some religious sensibilities.

throwaway4china 6y ago
You're not being genuine if you are trying to argue that the coverage of liberals on Wikipedia is the same as conservatives. Possibly you don't notice the biases because you agree with them, but it's there. There's a reason why there's a Conservapedia. https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bi... This situation pretty much reflects the state of all outlets, there's few if any places with no bias, you have to cross reference sources with each other and decide for yourself, especially for politically charged topics. Wikipedia cannot be trusted by itself because they usually do not allow right leaning sources or edits even if they are factually correct. They are very lenient to liberal sources even if they are blatantly false. - edit: replying to the commenter below - I did not say Conservapedia is the arbiter of truth or a non-bias source. This is where their religious biases show, at least they are honest about it in the naming and function of their site. The problem with Wikipedia is they masquerade as a bias-free collection of sources, which is false.
- freeflight 6y ago
  > You're not being genuine if you are trying to argue that the coverage of liberals on Wikipedia is the same as conservatives. And you are injecting a lot of your very uniquely American biases and perceptions into something where they don't really apply. Wikipedia has over 140.000 active contributors across over 200 languages. Your notion that all of them have conspired to suppress American conservatives in favor of "liberals", across dozens of different languages, is frankly quite a bit out there and reminiscent of that whole "cultural Marxism" narrative. That's not to say that Wikipedia doesn't have its issues, it has them, but jumping from there to something that could very well be described as a conspiracy theory, is reaching a bit far. > There's a reason why there's a Conservapedia. There's also a RationalWiki, a PsychonautWiki, a GayPedia, there's a Wookieepedia, there's a Wiki for pretty much everything. The existence of these is not evidence for a lack of such topics on actual Wikipedia, it's merely evidence of more specialized communities creating their own specialized Wikipedias where they can take things to details and dept that would usually be considered inappropriate for a general encyclopedia.
  - throwaway4china 6y ago
    > That's not to say that Wikipedia doesn't have it's issues, it has them, but jumping from there to something that could very well be described as a conspiracy theory, is reaching a bit much. You jumped to conspiracy theory. You said all. I did not. The editors simply have a bias that affects how they accept and offer contributions. These biases show especially in politically charged topics and you have to identify and check them, often they are factually wrong or misleading. I did not say all articles have this bias, but it is prevalent and makes Wikipedia unusable for any political research, unless you scrutinize all sources and do additional source finding that Wikipedia omitted on purpose because it didn't align with it's viewpoints. There are niche wikis, but Conservapedia exists to counter Wikipedia's bias on certain topics. They have a page I linked to which lists a lot of these biases, but it's barely an exhaustive list. You can find instances like these on nearly every political page. This is not some unfounded conspiracy theory as you suggest, Harvard has done a study on this as well as other institutions. Studies: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Coverage-bias-on-Wikipedia-Evidence-from-of-German-Kerkhof/b9788b4deee9df60e16660a805352fb33f9ea1a0 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Coverage-bias-on-Wikip... https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/17-028_e7788722-408f-48b4-8c82-f1f4de3539f3.pdf https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/17-028_e7788722-... http://wikipediocracy.com/2018/08/26/wikipedia-sources-methods/ http://wikipediocracy.com/2018/08/26/wikipedia-sources-metho... http://archive.is/dDr7X http://archive.is/dDr7X https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ Another example: https://medium.com/@MainstreamWatc2/blatant-liberal-bias-on-wikipedia-is-real-8c57c257931b https://medium.com/@MainstreamWatc2/blatant-liberal-bias-on-...
    - gottagetwnsite 6y ago
      Dude you're barking up the wrong tree, Hacker News is completely lost. Real hackers with the old spirit of questioning authority instead of just believing whatever the government (or anonymous people on Wikipedia) tells them are not welcome on this site. Conservative engineers need to start banding together and building companies, and we should explicitly exclude Woke people and others that insist on bringing politics into our profession.
  - 6y ago
- arp242 6y ago
  > There's a reason why there's a Conservapedia. Conservapedia is nothing short of batshit crazy unhinged lunacy. Have you ever even looked on it? "Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap." Literal quote: https://conservapedia.com/E%3Dmc%C2%B2 https://conservapedia.com/E%3Dmc%C2%B2 You are citing a source that considers Einstein's theories of relativity as examples of liberal bias. If that's not batshit crazy unhinged lunacy then I don't know what is. The rest of the site is hardly any better.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - scubbo 6y ago
    Wow, that is...quite the introductory section!
    - freeflight 6y ago
      Indeed, wanted to check out a few other articles, sadly the "Random page" link only keeps sending me to the very short, and rather unspectacular, article about "Wushu".

throwaway4china 6y ago

You're not being genuine if you are trying to argue that the coverage of liberals on Wikipedia is the same as conservatives. Possibly you don't notice the biases because you agree with them, but it's there. There's a reason why there's a Conservapedia. https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bi... This situation pretty much reflects the state of all outlets, there's few if any places with no bias, you have to cross reference sources with each other and decide for yourself, especially for politically charged topics. Wikipedia cannot be trusted by itself because they usually do not allow right leaning sources or edits even if they are factually correct. They are very lenient to liberal sources even if they are blatantly false. - edit: replying to the commenter below - I did not say Conservapedia is the arbiter of truth or a non-bias source. This is where their religious biases show, at least they are honest about it in the naming and function of their site. The problem with Wikipedia is they masquerade as a bias-free collection of sources, which is false.

freeflight 6y ago
> You're not being genuine if you are trying to argue that the coverage of liberals on Wikipedia is the same as conservatives. And you are injecting a lot of your very uniquely American biases and perceptions into something where they don't really apply. Wikipedia has over 140.000 active contributors across over 200 languages. Your notion that all of them have conspired to suppress American conservatives in favor of "liberals", across dozens of different languages, is frankly quite a bit out there and reminiscent of that whole "cultural Marxism" narrative. That's not to say that Wikipedia doesn't have its issues, it has them, but jumping from there to something that could very well be described as a conspiracy theory, is reaching a bit far. > There's a reason why there's a Conservapedia. There's also a RationalWiki, a PsychonautWiki, a GayPedia, there's a Wookieepedia, there's a Wiki for pretty much everything. The existence of these is not evidence for a lack of such topics on actual Wikipedia, it's merely evidence of more specialized communities creating their own specialized Wikipedias where they can take things to details and dept that would usually be considered inappropriate for a general encyclopedia.
- throwaway4china 6y ago
  > That's not to say that Wikipedia doesn't have it's issues, it has them, but jumping from there to something that could very well be described as a conspiracy theory, is reaching a bit much. You jumped to conspiracy theory. You said all. I did not. The editors simply have a bias that affects how they accept and offer contributions. These biases show especially in politically charged topics and you have to identify and check them, often they are factually wrong or misleading. I did not say all articles have this bias, but it is prevalent and makes Wikipedia unusable for any political research, unless you scrutinize all sources and do additional source finding that Wikipedia omitted on purpose because it didn't align with it's viewpoints. There are niche wikis, but Conservapedia exists to counter Wikipedia's bias on certain topics. They have a page I linked to which lists a lot of these biases, but it's barely an exhaustive list. You can find instances like these on nearly every political page. This is not some unfounded conspiracy theory as you suggest, Harvard has done a study on this as well as other institutions. Studies: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Coverage-bias-on-Wikipedia-Evidence-from-of-German-Kerkhof/b9788b4deee9df60e16660a805352fb33f9ea1a0 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Coverage-bias-on-Wikip... https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/17-028_e7788722-408f-48b4-8c82-f1f4de3539f3.pdf https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/17-028_e7788722-... http://wikipediocracy.com/2018/08/26/wikipedia-sources-methods/ http://wikipediocracy.com/2018/08/26/wikipedia-sources-metho... http://archive.is/dDr7X http://archive.is/dDr7X https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ Another example: https://medium.com/@MainstreamWatc2/blatant-liberal-bias-on-wikipedia-is-real-8c57c257931b https://medium.com/@MainstreamWatc2/blatant-liberal-bias-on-...
  - gottagetwnsite 6y ago
    Dude you're barking up the wrong tree, Hacker News is completely lost. Real hackers with the old spirit of questioning authority instead of just believing whatever the government (or anonymous people on Wikipedia) tells them are not welcome on this site. Conservative engineers need to start banding together and building companies, and we should explicitly exclude Woke people and others that insist on bringing politics into our profession.
- 6y ago
arp242 6y ago
> There's a reason why there's a Conservapedia. Conservapedia is nothing short of batshit crazy unhinged lunacy. Have you ever even looked on it? "Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap." Literal quote: https://conservapedia.com/E%3Dmc%C2%B2 https://conservapedia.com/E%3Dmc%C2%B2 You are citing a source that considers Einstein's theories of relativity as examples of liberal bias. If that's not batshit crazy unhinged lunacy then I don't know what is. The rest of the site is hardly any better.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- scubbo 6y ago
  Wow, that is...quite the introductory section!
  - freeflight 6y ago
    Indeed, wanted to check out a few other articles, sadly the "Random page" link only keeps sending me to the very short, and rather unspectacular, article about "Wushu".