6 ms·

what? since when wikipedia is biased? and about what? (and why EB isn't?)

by _ZeD_ 3y ago

dharmab 3y ago
At the risk of conflict of interest, there's a wikipedia page that acknowledges that niche sections of the site have biases. Of particular interest is the section on Croatia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedi...
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago
  It baffles me how you can either have a news/information source with a left-wing bias or a total cesspool of untrustworthy information with a glaringly obvious agenda. This comment seems to get some hate, but all you have to do is skim over the linked Wikipedia article to verify what I'm saying.
  - npteljes 3y ago
    I agree, and for another demonstration, I invite everyone to look at similar sites as Wikipedia. They are either "left wing bias" (RationalWiki) or one with an agenda, divorced from reality (Conservapedia). It almost looks like that if you organize basic democratic cooperation among people, that's automatically "left wing" from where our current narrative stands.
    - zirgs 3y ago
      Some parts of RationalWiki aren't that rational any more, unfortunately.
      - npteljes 3y ago
        Eh, if most is rational, then I think they do a good job. Very factual too, which is good to know: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rationalwiki/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rationalwiki/
    - the_third_wave 3y ago
      > They are either "left wing bias" (RationalWiki) or one with an agenda, divorced from reality (Conservapedia). #/bin/env bash read -p "Please enter your personal bias (e.g. conservative, liberal, progressive, etc.) philisophy: " bias echo "they are either ${bias}ly biased or with an agenda, divorced from reality."
      - npteljes 3y ago
        Do you think the same about OP's statement that I reflected on, stating "you can either have a news/information source with a left-wing bias or a total cesspool of untrustworthy information with a glaringly obvious agenda"? As a point of reference, if you search high traffic websites with "Left bias" and also with "Right bias"[0], it will turn out that the average factuality of the sources are higher on the "Left bias" news sources. This makes me think that the point of reference, the "center", is now off-center, to the right. To the point where actual reality seems "left". "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias". Considering this, sources even further to the right will of course have worse information, same as they would on the far left. And this is for news sources - what I added was that I observed the same for wikis. [0] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/?bias=Left&traffic_estimate=High%20Traffic https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/?bias=Left&tr...
      - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
        That's a cute way to say essentially nothing. Edit: feel free to defend the Conservapedia's take on climate change for example https://www.conservapedia.com/Climate_change https://www.conservapedia.com/Climate_change. Absolutely laughable bullshit.
        npteljes 3y ago
        While it was not said out loud, it reminded me of the "both sides" fallacy. Like how schools should teach both sides, creationism and evolution, as if both have the same merit. Likewise, the bash script implies that bias is bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
bheadmaster 3y ago
US politics, definitely. But also any other topic that attracts an internet mob large enough to infiltrate the editor community. Take the first few paragraphs of Donald Trump [0] vs. Joe Biden [1] and try to compare the way they're presented: Donald John Trump [...] and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six business bankruptcies. Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic. [...] He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. There's not a single positive sentence about him. He must have done something positive in his 4 years of reign, but Wikipedia doesn't tell me that in an objective manner. Meanwhile... Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. [...] has addressed the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent recession. He signed the American Rescue Plan Act, the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified protections for same-sex marriage and repealed the Defense of Marriage Act. He appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Biden restored America's membership in the Paris Agreement on climate change. There's not a single negative sentence about him. He must have done something negative in his 4 years of reign, but Wikipedia doesn't tell me that in an objective manner. Whenever someone tries to portray someone as completely evil or completely saint-like, I call bullshit. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
- jrockway 3y ago
  The article covers allegations of corruption and mentions his "gaffes" a number of times. Sometimes where there's no smoke, there's no fire. The guy is very boring and has a weird kid. That's about it.
  - smegsicle 3y ago
    i know you're being sarcastic, but do i think its interesting that centrist politics is sometimes viewed as less corrupt just because the bias is harder to articulate
throwaway75 3y ago
Really? Wikipedia's left-wing bias is well known: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pa... https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1600200000763756544 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1600200000763756544 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9283061/Wikipedia-founder-Larry-Sanger-slams-sites-leftist-bias-claims-neutrality-gone.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9283061/Wikipedia-f... https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/ https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site... https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/04/27/wikipedias-left-wing-bias/ https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/04/27/wikipedias-left-wing-... Compared to Britannica: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/is-wikipedia-more-biased-than-encyclopdia-britannica https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/is-wikipedia-more-biased-than-enc...
user4646546 3y ago
Example: https://nitter.net/echetus/status/1579776106034757633#m https://nitter.net/echetus/status/1579776106034757633#m
UberFly 3y ago
Wikipedia is as biased as the writers of the articles. Wikipedia has articles outlining bias in its own articles. These things are authored by people, and people are biased. Wikipedia knows this and so should its readers. They aren't unique.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
the_third_wave 3y ago
> since when wikipedia is biased Since the first article hit the site which clearly showed off the personal bias of the author. Then since the first article was edited by a group of like-minded editors who approved of each others edits but were vigilant in keeping other opinions off the page. These groups of editors come in different flavours ranging from ideologically driven [1] - these control the narrative on pages related to politics and politically sensitive topics like SARS2 and "Climate" - to commercially employed to keep unwanted narratives off certain pages. > and why EB isn't? Who says that Encyclopedia Britannica is not biased? They are to a certain (although lesser) extent, they just happen to be differently biased. That is where my remark on the value of diversity of opinion comes in. [1] https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/

what? since when wikipedia is biased? and about what? (and why EB isn't?)

by _ZeD_ 3y ago

what? since when wikipedia is biased? and about what? (and why EB isn't?)

At the risk of conflict of interest, there's a wikipedia page that acknowledges that niche sections of the site have biases. Of particular interest is the section on Croatia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedi...

karmakurtisaani 3y ago
It baffles me how you can either have a news/information source with a left-wing bias or a total cesspool of untrustworthy information with a glaringly obvious agenda. This comment seems to get some hate, but all you have to do is skim over the linked Wikipedia article to verify what I'm saying.
- npteljes 3y ago
  I agree, and for another demonstration, I invite everyone to look at similar sites as Wikipedia. They are either "left wing bias" (RationalWiki) or one with an agenda, divorced from reality (Conservapedia). It almost looks like that if you organize basic democratic cooperation among people, that's automatically "left wing" from where our current narrative stands.
  - zirgs 3y ago
    Some parts of RationalWiki aren't that rational any more, unfortunately.
    - npteljes 3y ago
      Eh, if most is rational, then I think they do a good job. Very factual too, which is good to know: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rationalwiki/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rationalwiki/
  - the_third_wave 3y ago
    > They are either "left wing bias" (RationalWiki) or one with an agenda, divorced from reality (Conservapedia). #/bin/env bash read -p "Please enter your personal bias (e.g. conservative, liberal, progressive, etc.) philisophy: " bias echo "they are either ${bias}ly biased or with an agenda, divorced from reality."
    - npteljes 3y ago
      Do you think the same about OP's statement that I reflected on, stating "you can either have a news/information source with a left-wing bias or a total cesspool of untrustworthy information with a glaringly obvious agenda"? As a point of reference, if you search high traffic websites with "Left bias" and also with "Right bias"[0], it will turn out that the average factuality of the sources are higher on the "Left bias" news sources. This makes me think that the point of reference, the "center", is now off-center, to the right. To the point where actual reality seems "left". "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias". Considering this, sources even further to the right will of course have worse information, same as they would on the far left. And this is for news sources - what I added was that I observed the same for wikis. [0] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/?bias=Left&traffic_estimate=High%20Traffic https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/?bias=Left&tr...
    - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
      That's a cute way to say essentially nothing. Edit: feel free to defend the Conservapedia's take on climate change for example https://www.conservapedia.com/Climate_change https://www.conservapedia.com/Climate_change. Absolutely laughable bullshit.
      - npteljes 3y ago
        While it was not said out loud, it reminded me of the "both sides" fallacy. Like how schools should teach both sides, creationism and evolution, as if both have the same merit. Likewise, the bash script implies that bias is bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

bheadmaster 3y ago

US politics, definitely. But also any other topic that attracts an internet mob large enough to infiltrate the editor community. Take the first few paragraphs of Donald Trump [0] vs. Joe Biden [1] and try to compare the way they're presented: Donald John Trump [...] and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six business bankruptcies. Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic. [...] He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. There's not a single positive sentence about him. He must have done something positive in his 4 years of reign, but Wikipedia doesn't tell me that in an objective manner. Meanwhile... Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. [...] has addressed the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent recession. He signed the American Rescue Plan Act, the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified protections for same-sex marriage and repealed the Defense of Marriage Act. He appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Biden restored America's membership in the Paris Agreement on climate change. There's not a single negative sentence about him. He must have done something negative in his 4 years of reign, but Wikipedia doesn't tell me that in an objective manner. Whenever someone tries to portray someone as completely evil or completely saint-like, I call bullshit. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

jrockway 3y ago
The article covers allegations of corruption and mentions his "gaffes" a number of times. Sometimes where there's no smoke, there's no fire. The guy is very boring and has a weird kid. That's about it.
- smegsicle 3y ago
  i know you're being sarcastic, but do i think its interesting that centrist politics is sometimes viewed as less corrupt just because the bias is harder to articulate

throwaway75 3y ago

Really? Wikipedia's left-wing bias is well known: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pa... https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1600200000763756544 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1600200000763756544 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9283061/Wikipedia-founder-Larry-Sanger-slams-sites-leftist-bias-claims-neutrality-gone.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9283061/Wikipedia-f... https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/ https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site... https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/04/27/wikipedias-left-wing-bias/ https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/04/27/wikipedias-left-wing-... Compared to Britannica: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/is-wikipedia-more-biased-than-encyclopdia-britannica https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/is-wikipedia-more-biased-than-enc...

user4646546 3y ago

Example: https://nitter.net/echetus/status/1579776106034757633#m https://nitter.net/echetus/status/1579776106034757633#m

UberFly 3y ago

Wikipedia is as biased as the writers of the articles. Wikipedia has articles outlining bias in its own articles. These things are authored by people, and people are biased. Wikipedia knows this and so should its readers. They aren't unique.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

the_third_wave 3y ago

> since when wikipedia is biased Since the first article hit the site which clearly showed off the personal bias of the author. Then since the first article was edited by a group of like-minded editors who approved of each others edits but were vigilant in keeping other opinions off the page. These groups of editors come in different flavours ranging from ideologically driven [1] - these control the narrative on pages related to politics and politically sensitive topics like SARS2 and "Climate" - to commercially employed to keep unwanted narratives off certain pages. > and why EB isn't? Who says that Encyclopedia Britannica is not biased? They are to a certain (although lesser) extent, they just happen to be differently biased. That is where my remark on the value of diversity of opinion comes in. [1] https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/