4 ms·

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 secti

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

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