3 ms·
Please, before assuming you know what I mean, read the complete comment. The trouble with Wikipedia is that it's an inch deep. That's not its biggest problem.
by narag 3y ago
Please, before assuming you know what I mean, read the complete comment.
The trouble with Wikipedia is that it's an inch deep.
That's not its biggest problem. Wikipedia is biased.
Of course there's political bias in the American fashion. But that's not all. There is bias about History depending on what country is telling the story. And there is a strong bias even in scientific topics (maybe specially in them) when there are commercial interests involved.
That's not specific to Wikipedia.
But when you research some topic, reading multiple books, you'll notice there are different opinions, you learn to discount bias looking at the procedence. Wikipedia tries to adopt a neutral tone and cite different sources, but sometimes it does a terrible job at it.
- nomel 3y ago> There is bias about History depending on what country is telling the story. A funny example of this is fan death [1]. Comparing English to southeast Asian languages show that Asian languages pages suggest that it's real (at least last few times I translated it). An, in a bit of relevancy, the Japanese page has been overwritten with "I love you" and "I'm sorry". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death
- mr_toad 3y agoWell that was bizarre. But if you have a government agency saying that electric fans can cause asphyxiation, and even that they have data to provide it, can you blame people in that country for believing it?