6 ms·

Just search for anything remotely political and you will find a lot of bias.

kemayo 3y ago
I'm not talking about whether there are scandals about Wikipedia. I'm saying it's weird what the article chose to use as a demonstration.
- lifthrasiir 3y ago
  And Wikipedia does have an extensive list of its own controversies [1]. That doesn't mean Wikipedia is not to blame, but miraculously it did have a good track record compared to other online projects of the similar size and influence. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversie...
wodenokoto 3y ago
I don't see how federation can help with that. At worst it's going to have hundreds of conflicting versions of a document, where each federated node disagree on which is the current master of the document, because each node is fighting for their bias, or it's going to be Wikipedia, where there is one promoted version of the document with whatever bias.
- account42 3y ago
  > At worst it's going to have hundreds of conflicting versions of a document, where each federated node disagree on which is the current master of the document, because each node is fighting for their bias Sounds like an improvement over one dominant group being able to declare their viewpoint as The Truth(tm).
  - downvotetruth 3y ago
    If only the versions had voting...
ChrisKnott 3y ago
I just picked a random political article to which I have no significant connection[0]; I don't notice "a lot of bias"...? For me Wikipedia is consistently amongst the least biased sources on the internet. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party
- vintermann 3y ago
  If you have no significant connection to it, how would you know if it's biased or not?
  - theamk 3y ago
    In some wikipedia clones, it's pretty obvious: https://www.conservapedia.com/Video_games https://www.conservapedia.com/Video_games
- ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
  Compare the first paragraphs of these two articles. Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_(harassment_campaign) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_(harassment_campaign...
  - vkou 3y ago
    But... It was a misogynistic harassment campaign. Some maybe well-meaning useful idiots also hitched their horse to it (and most have not even been tarnished by it), but that was the main thrust of that adventure. Is Wikipedia supposed to describe World War II as a 'small disagreement over national borders and ethnic purity', lest it be accused of partiality? A spade's a spade, a war's a war, a harassment campaign is... A harassment campaign.
    - ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
      The KYM article mentions the harassment but is less editorialized. "The term has also since been used to describe the group of internet users, based mainly on Twitter, who claim that there is a lack of transparency within the video game journalism industry. These same people have also been criticized of practicing misogyny and sexism by many, through harassment and trolling, referring to their opposition as social justice warriors." Compare that to the indignation dripping from the wiki paragraph.
LeoPanthera 3y ago
Truthiness is not bias.

I'm not talking about whether there are scandals about Wikipedia. I'm saying it's weird what the article chose to use as a demonstration.

lifthrasiir 3y ago
And Wikipedia does have an extensive list of its own controversies [1]. That doesn't mean Wikipedia is not to blame, but miraculously it did have a good track record compared to other online projects of the similar size and influence. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversie...

wodenokoto 3y ago

I don't see how federation can help with that. At worst it's going to have hundreds of conflicting versions of a document, where each federated node disagree on which is the current master of the document, because each node is fighting for their bias, or it's going to be Wikipedia, where there is one promoted version of the document with whatever bias.

account42 3y ago
> At worst it's going to have hundreds of conflicting versions of a document, where each federated node disagree on which is the current master of the document, because each node is fighting for their bias Sounds like an improvement over one dominant group being able to declare their viewpoint as The Truth(tm).
- downvotetruth 3y ago
  If only the versions had voting...

ChrisKnott 3y ago

I just picked a random political article to which I have no significant connection[0]; I don't notice "a lot of bias"...? For me Wikipedia is consistently amongst the least biased sources on the internet. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party

vintermann 3y ago
If you have no significant connection to it, how would you know if it's biased or not?
- theamk 3y ago
  In some wikipedia clones, it's pretty obvious: https://www.conservapedia.com/Video_games https://www.conservapedia.com/Video_games
ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
Compare the first paragraphs of these two articles. Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_(harassment_campaign) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_(harassment_campaign...
- vkou 3y ago
  But... It was a misogynistic harassment campaign. Some maybe well-meaning useful idiots also hitched their horse to it (and most have not even been tarnished by it), but that was the main thrust of that adventure. Is Wikipedia supposed to describe World War II as a 'small disagreement over national borders and ethnic purity', lest it be accused of partiality? A spade's a spade, a war's a war, a harassment campaign is... A harassment campaign.
  - ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
    The KYM article mentions the harassment but is less editorialized. "The term has also since been used to describe the group of internet users, based mainly on Twitter, who claim that there is a lack of transparency within the video game journalism industry. These same people have also been criticized of practicing misogyny and sexism by many, through harassment and trolling, referring to their opposition as social justice warriors." Compare that to the indignation dripping from the wiki paragraph.

LeoPanthera 3y ago

Truthiness is not bias.