3 ms·

> Wikipedia leans left That is subjective, and depends on where you think the "centre" is. I don't regard Wikipedia as reliable on any topic that is political

> Wikipedia leans left That is subjective, and depends on where you think the "centre" is. I don't regard Wikipedia as reliable on any topic that is political or involves national history. Modern Wikipedia expects editors to support their edits with citations to "reliable sources", which means the mainstream press, mainly (because primary sources are deprecated). But the mainstream press is overwhelmingly right-wing, and left-wing papers and magazines are usually explicitly rejected as not reliable. On matters of politics and history, I always dig into the citations (unless I'm happy to get a sketchy version that isn't really accurate). But on most technical and humanities-based topics, the articles are usually quite good (and often much deeper than 1"). There's still way too much stuff in articles that is not cited at all. That changes gradually, as editors delete uncited material, and others come along with suitable citations. I think it's getting better all the time.

mellosouls 3y ago
That is subjective, and depends on where you think the "centre" is. Not at all. Even wikipedia itself acknowledges it [1] - and you can bet the editors responsible for the bias were fighting tooth and nail against that admission - which gives some idea how unbalanced it must be in reality. Modern Wikipedia expects editors to support their edits with citations to "reliable sources", which means the mainstream press... And academia - don't forget academia, that bastion of the right. ...the mainstream press is overwhelmingly right-wing That's ridiculous - The Guardian?? The Washington Post? New York Times? I think you've made a point about Wikipedia though, but perhaps not the one you intended... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > That's ridiculous - The Guardian?? The Washington Post? New York Times? Yes, those. I'm not closely familiar with NYT and Washpo; but I'm a long-time reader of the Guardian. It's role is to delimit the left end of the Overton Window, which is roughly the left-ish end of the Shadow Cabinet, and is currently well to the right of Labour Party membership. From my limited exposure, I'd say NYT and Washpo are well to the right of The Guardian, as the Democratic Party is well to the right of Labour in the UK. Your WP link doesn't speak to any strong bias in English Wikipedia; it says roughly that WP content is "establishment", which isn't surprising, considering the Reliable Sources policy. It also says that older articles exhibit a stronger "left-wing" bias (i.e. pro-Democratic). And the article is written from a US POV; in the USA, socialism is still a "bad word", and the word "liberal" is used instead.
  - mellosouls 3y ago
    If you consider the likes of The Guardian right-wing there is really no point in continuing this discussion as I don't believe it can be done in a good faith manner.
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
      I hope you aren't accusing me of bad faith! The Guardian has been a supporter of the Israeli government since before there was an Israeli government. Nobody could accuse the Israeli government of being left-wing. The Guardian was part of the coalition that hounded Jeremy Corbyn out of the Labour leadership, because he was too "left wing". Starmer refused to let him stand in the seat he's represented for decades; The Guardian strongly backs Starmer, who represents the most right-wing elements in Labour. I'm happy to discontinue this discussion, not because I suspect you of bad faith, but because political discussions aren't generally on-topic on HN.

mellosouls 3y ago

That is subjective, and depends on where you think the "centre" is. Not at all. Even wikipedia itself acknowledges it [1] - and you can bet the editors responsible for the bias were fighting tooth and nail against that admission - which gives some idea how unbalanced it must be in reality. Modern Wikipedia expects editors to support their edits with citations to "reliable sources", which means the mainstream press... And academia - don't forget academia, that bastion of the right. ...the mainstream press is overwhelmingly right-wing That's ridiculous - The Guardian?? The Washington Post? New York Times? I think you've made a point about Wikipedia though, but perhaps not the one you intended... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia

denton-scratch 3y ago
> That's ridiculous - The Guardian?? The Washington Post? New York Times? Yes, those. I'm not closely familiar with NYT and Washpo; but I'm a long-time reader of the Guardian. It's role is to delimit the left end of the Overton Window, which is roughly the left-ish end of the Shadow Cabinet, and is currently well to the right of Labour Party membership. From my limited exposure, I'd say NYT and Washpo are well to the right of The Guardian, as the Democratic Party is well to the right of Labour in the UK. Your WP link doesn't speak to any strong bias in English Wikipedia; it says roughly that WP content is "establishment", which isn't surprising, considering the Reliable Sources policy. It also says that older articles exhibit a stronger "left-wing" bias (i.e. pro-Democratic). And the article is written from a US POV; in the USA, socialism is still a "bad word", and the word "liberal" is used instead.
- mellosouls 3y ago
  If you consider the likes of The Guardian right-wing there is really no point in continuing this discussion as I don't believe it can be done in a good faith manner.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    I hope you aren't accusing me of bad faith! The Guardian has been a supporter of the Israeli government since before there was an Israeli government. Nobody could accuse the Israeli government of being left-wing. The Guardian was part of the coalition that hounded Jeremy Corbyn out of the Labour leadership, because he was too "left wing". Starmer refused to let him stand in the seat he's represented for decades; The Guardian strongly backs Starmer, who represents the most right-wing elements in Labour. I'm happy to discontinue this discussion, not because I suspect you of bad faith, but because political discussions aren't generally on-topic on HN.