4 ms·
> it seems those on the right are playing this better I'm sure many would disagree with this, personally I find the idea of the right dominating (English) wik
by version_five 4y ago
> it seems those on the right are playing this better
I'm sure many would disagree with this, personally I find the idea of the right dominating (English) wikipedia laughable.
But that's a pointless discussion. I think the takeaway should be there is no such thing as neutral media - one man's "neutral" perspective is another's far $political_direction. It's similar to "fact checking". Reality outside of the hard sciences (and even then) is subjective. It's much better to communicate the perspective from which reporting is done, or at least to not pretend to be neutral. And interested people necessarily need to seek a broad range of perspectives and not take any one platform as truth, no matter how neutral
- akolbe 4y agoThere's another discussion here currently, concerning another academic study concluding that Wikipedia has a "moderate yet systematic" liberal citation bias: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34744696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34744696 Basically I agree. Generally speaking the English Wikipedia skews slightly left. However, Wikipedia is so vast that the direction and intensity of bias can vary from topic to topic even in the English Wikipedia. (For example, I once came across a whole bevy of articles singing the praises of the Kazakh government.) It all depends on who is most interested in the articles and most motivated to edit them.