4 ms·
my issue with wikipedia is that its only a reflection of controlled mainstream information, and notably corporate news like CNN. every corporate news outlet lik
by 93po 2y ago
my issue with wikipedia is that its only a reflection of controlled mainstream information, and notably corporate news like CNN. every corporate news outlet like CNN has incredible bias to the point of blatant dishonesty, but because of how wikipedia works, sites like CNN are the word of god and everything they write is treated like fact. therefore wikipedia is effectively an extension of the propaganda getting pushed out by the billionaire owners of news companies.
disclaimer: its not just CNN, I'm not right-wing, yes also right wing sites are bias and dishonest, maybe even more so
- tim333 2y agoI don't actually read CNN, but having a look at the Wikipedia for "Islamic terrorism" which I guess is the kind of stuff CNN avoids, there's quite a lot of coverage from non corporate sources, the first three references being The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought and And God Knows the Martyrs: Martyrdom and Violence in Jihadi-Salafism from Oxford University Press. Just saying that saying it's all CNN like stuff may be a bit unfair to Wikipedia.
- 93po 2y agoGo look at it for Hillary Clinton, and specifically the sources for anything from the past 15 years of her life. It's 80-90% corporate news sources owned or controlled by billionaires.