3 ms·
> It's hard to find articles written from a neutral point of view on English version on Wikipedia. The articles on stuff other than politics and political figu
by daniel-thompson 5y ago
> It's hard to find articles written from a neutral point of view on English version on Wikipedia.
The articles on stuff other than politics and political figures tend to be pretty neutral.
- datenarsch 5y agoThat's what it's still somewhat good for. I mostly use it to read about random history stuff I'm interested like medieval Europe etc. but avoid it completely for anything contemporary because it always has incredibly left-leaning bias. I'm thinking of just getting a subscription for a real encyclopedia though because Wikipedia is often rather low quality in my opinion.
- bobthechef 5y agoMedieval history is often caricaturish as taught in school. I would not presume Wikipedia is free from the influence of centuries of Protestant and Enlightenment smears.
- Bud 5y ago> Incredibly left-leaning bias Read: fact-leaning bias
- FredPret 5y agoIf the facts support leftism, you should be strongly in favour of a completely neutral retelling of the facts and let reality speak for itself.
- Bud 5y agoWhich I am. As is implicit in my comment, for those informed enough to interpret it accurately.
- FredPret 5y agoBut when articles written about right-leaning figures are filled with condemnation instead of dry facts, while articles about left-leaning figures are laudatory instead of drily factual, it creates the opposite effect.
- Leparamour 5y ago>Read: fact-leaning bias That is if you redefine what the words 'fact' or 'fact-checking' mean in the style of Orwellian newspeak.
- Bud 5y agoActually, no. Nice try, though!