4 ms·

As discussed here in the past, Wikipedia is notoriously left-leaning in content that has a political or social-cultural aspect. This is presumably (?) down to t

As discussed here in the past, Wikipedia is notoriously left-leaning in content that has a political or social-cultural aspect. This is presumably (?) down to the type of people generally drawn to editing wiki pages, and the academic resources they also often draw on as "authoritative". Fox news (and similar) as a source might be a problem, but it's not representative of the bias issues with Wikipedia.

yucky 4y ago
>This is presumably (?) down to the type of people generally drawn to editing wiki pages Well maybe, but also the bulk of the funding to the Wikimedia Foundation comes from The Tides Foundation who is extremely biased[0]. "The Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization which manages Wikipedia, is closely tied to the Tides Foundation. The general counsel of Wikimedia, Amanda Keton, is the former general counsel of the Tides Network, the former head of Tides Foundation, and the former CEO of Tides Advocacy. The multimillion-dollar Wikimedia Endowment, created in 2016, is managed by the Tides Foundation and has an advisory board appointed by Tides. In 2020, Wikimedia established the multimillion-dollar Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Fund to be run by Tides Advocacy" [1] [0]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/15/wikipedia-fund-future https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/15/wikipedia... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides_Foundation
incomingpain 4y ago
Imagine you wanted to produce an unbiased encyclopedia. You have to have sources for information which have to come from all major viewpoints, whether you like it or not. You have to also actively prevent activists whose agenda does not align. The problem with wikipedia is they didn't do that. We have reached a point where wikipedia doesn't accept anything but left-leaning sources. Effectively excluding a significant worldview. To what end exactly? This doesn't change minds or benefit the activist's agenda at all. It just damages wikipedia's reputation.
tablespoon 4y ago
Wikipedia is popular because people will almost always choose cheap, readily available crap over better quality things that have even a small barrier to access. For a nonprofit to build something as cheap and expansive as Wikipedia, they really have to rely on people with very unusual psychology or people with agendas, and their first batch really set the tone.

yucky 4y ago

>This is presumably (?) down to the type of people generally drawn to editing wiki pages Well maybe, but also the bulk of the funding to the Wikimedia Foundation comes from The Tides Foundation who is extremely biased[0]. "The Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization which manages Wikipedia, is closely tied to the Tides Foundation. The general counsel of Wikimedia, Amanda Keton, is the former general counsel of the Tides Network, the former head of Tides Foundation, and the former CEO of Tides Advocacy. The multimillion-dollar Wikimedia Endowment, created in 2016, is managed by the Tides Foundation and has an advisory board appointed by Tides. In 2020, Wikimedia established the multimillion-dollar Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Fund to be run by Tides Advocacy" [1] [0]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/15/wikipedia-fund-future https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/15/wikipedia... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides_Foundation

incomingpain 4y ago

Imagine you wanted to produce an unbiased encyclopedia. You have to have sources for information which have to come from all major viewpoints, whether you like it or not. You have to also actively prevent activists whose agenda does not align. The problem with wikipedia is they didn't do that. We have reached a point where wikipedia doesn't accept anything but left-leaning sources. Effectively excluding a significant worldview. To what end exactly? This doesn't change minds or benefit the activist's agenda at all. It just damages wikipedia's reputation.

tablespoon 4y ago

Wikipedia is popular because people will almost always choose cheap, readily available crap over better quality things that have even a small barrier to access. For a nonprofit to build something as cheap and expansive as Wikipedia, they really have to rely on people with very unusual psychology or people with agendas, and their first batch really set the tone.