4 ms·

Wikipedia is as legitimate as they get, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Readers should be aware of its bias in which sources it allows (which has knock-on e

Wikipedia is as legitimate as they get, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Readers should be aware of its bias in which sources it allows (which has knock-on effects on which facts and stories cannot be included because no "reliable" sources report on them, while left-leaning sources are unmotivated to report them): Wikipedia’s list of deprecated sources currently contains 16 right-leaning sources: Breitbart, the Daily Caller, the Daily Mail, the Daily Star, the Epoch Times, FrontPage Magazine, the Gateway Pundit, Infowars, LifeSiteNews, News of the World, One America News Network, the Sun, Taki’s Magazine, VDare, WorldNetDaily, and Zero Hedge – and just one left-leaning source, Occupy Democrats. Other politically biased sources have also been deprecated, but it is harder to position them on the left-right political axis, such as media companies controlled by the Russian or Chinese government. ... but a similar standard has not been applied to lower quality, left-leaning sources such as CounterPunch, AlterNet, and the Daily Kos. According to Ad Fontes Media‘s widely-used media bias chart (which is commonly cited in discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard), CounterPunch, AlterNet, and the Daily Kos are all less reliable than the Daily Mail. This is significant because the Daily Mail, a deprecated right-leaning source, is often used as a benchmark for judging whether other right-leaning sources should be deprecated. All three of these left-wing sources are widely used at Wikipedia. https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/

pflenker 2y ago
The amount of deprecated sources doesn’t tell you anything about any bias without the number of allowed sources.
- decimalenough 2y ago
  Here's the list, have a browse and try to find any that are (US) conservative and green ("generally reliable"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per... There's a few economically conservative sources (Economist, WSJ, etc) but I don't think there's any politically conservative ones.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    The source bias is a big problem but it goes beyond that. The various groups of people who have power within Wikipedia simply create content with their personal bias. Look at how easily Wikipedia editors throw the conspiracy theory label on everything they disagree with politically, for example.
    - Zigurd 2y ago
      While there is plenty of baloney on the left, like quantum consciousness and crystals etc. it isn't held up as being proudly wrong. Biden's HHS secy. wasn't a Reiki Master even if Reiki Masters are leftish. RFK Jr. is proudly a kook, regardless of how right or left he is. It just isn't symmetrical.
perching_aix 2y ago
The problem I have with this kind of bias evaluation is fairly straightforward: what if a group of people aligned in a particular way engages in more "untrustworthy" speech than their counterparts? Follows then that a filtering that aimed to curb untrustworthy content would now be disproportionately filtering against their content in general, so now they can point at the filtering and call it biased, and even pass the smell test as far as the numbers are concerned. Very curious things start happening when we look through lenses like these. It's very difficult to effectively discuss unfortunately too, without getting into any catfights.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  > The problem I have with this kind of bias evaluation is fairly straightforward: what if a group of people aligned in a particular way engages in more "untrustworthy" speech than their counterparts? The article takes this into account: "but a similar standard has not been applied to lower quality, left-leaning sources such as CounterPunch, AlterNet, and the Daily Kos."
  - perching_aix 2y ago
    That is fine, but I think it's still important to recognize this. In my initial reading, the numbers comparison stood out a lot more from the thread starter's comment than the rest for example, which is a problem if perpetuated without the rest. In a sense, mentioning the numbers in the way it was mentioned almost invites misinterpretation, I'd say.
orwin 2y ago
This is caused by how a source is deprecated. You have source deprecated by RfC, following a discussion/controversy (half of the examples probably came from the Sandy Hook edit war). Then you have sources, the vast majority, that are de facto deprecated, hence are not on any list. If as an example, Counterpunch and AlterNet are never cited except following the 'verifiability policy', they are de facto deprecated, and if it's the case, the author never bothered researching his subject or even reading Wikipedia rules. Which would explain why thecritic is also de facto deprecated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources
- perching_aix 2y ago
  That thecritic article claims the listed questionable left leaning sites are heavily cited, is that not true then? Is there a way to search for this effectively?
  - orwin 2y ago
    The only page i found AlterNet cited was AlterNet itself, so i would guess no. If only the article provided sources, or at least example, but i guess it's too much to ask To be honest, it's quite easy, wiki moderators use custom search engines to improve links (especially on heavily discussed or heavily viewed article), here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advanced_source_searching#Custom_search_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advanced_source_sear... if one of the engine return AlterNet or CounterPunch articles on political questions, it's probably "heavily used". If not, the author is a probably a liar, the editor certainly don't check articles and the publication is surely as worthless as AlterNet.
    - perching_aix 2y ago
      I checked the article again and it says the following right after the quoted part: > An external links search shows around 2,580 [1] Wikipedia pages linking to CounterPunch, around 2,400 [2] linking to the Daily Kos, and around 1,640 [3] linking to AlterNet. [1] https://archive.is/PWPNB https://archive.is/PWPNB [2] https://archive.is/R19OZ https://archive.is/R19OZ [3] https://archive.is/kNtgq https://archive.is/kNtgq Considering how many pages there are on Wikipedia, and how many of these results are notes and talk pages, I think one can conclusively determine that these sites are in fact not "widely used" sources. This isn't to say they're aren't questionable or shouldn't be filtered against of course (nor that they are and should be).

pflenker 2y ago

The amount of deprecated sources doesn’t tell you anything about any bias without the number of allowed sources.

decimalenough 2y ago
Here's the list, have a browse and try to find any that are (US) conservative and green ("generally reliable"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per... There's a few economically conservative sources (Economist, WSJ, etc) but I don't think there's any politically conservative ones.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  The source bias is a big problem but it goes beyond that. The various groups of people who have power within Wikipedia simply create content with their personal bias. Look at how easily Wikipedia editors throw the conspiracy theory label on everything they disagree with politically, for example.
  - Zigurd 2y ago
    While there is plenty of baloney on the left, like quantum consciousness and crystals etc. it isn't held up as being proudly wrong. Biden's HHS secy. wasn't a Reiki Master even if Reiki Masters are leftish. RFK Jr. is proudly a kook, regardless of how right or left he is. It just isn't symmetrical.

perching_aix 2y ago

The problem I have with this kind of bias evaluation is fairly straightforward: what if a group of people aligned in a particular way engages in more "untrustworthy" speech than their counterparts? Follows then that a filtering that aimed to curb untrustworthy content would now be disproportionately filtering against their content in general, so now they can point at the filtering and call it biased, and even pass the smell test as far as the numbers are concerned. Very curious things start happening when we look through lenses like these. It's very difficult to effectively discuss unfortunately too, without getting into any catfights.

like_any_other 2y ago
> The problem I have with this kind of bias evaluation is fairly straightforward: what if a group of people aligned in a particular way engages in more "untrustworthy" speech than their counterparts? The article takes this into account: "but a similar standard has not been applied to lower quality, left-leaning sources such as CounterPunch, AlterNet, and the Daily Kos."
- perching_aix 2y ago
  That is fine, but I think it's still important to recognize this. In my initial reading, the numbers comparison stood out a lot more from the thread starter's comment than the rest for example, which is a problem if perpetuated without the rest. In a sense, mentioning the numbers in the way it was mentioned almost invites misinterpretation, I'd say.

orwin 2y ago

This is caused by how a source is deprecated. You have source deprecated by RfC, following a discussion/controversy (half of the examples probably came from the Sandy Hook edit war). Then you have sources, the vast majority, that are de facto deprecated, hence are not on any list. If as an example, Counterpunch and AlterNet are never cited except following the 'verifiability policy', they are de facto deprecated, and if it's the case, the author never bothered researching his subject or even reading Wikipedia rules. Which would explain why thecritic is also de facto deprecated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources

perching_aix 2y ago
That thecritic article claims the listed questionable left leaning sites are heavily cited, is that not true then? Is there a way to search for this effectively?
- orwin 2y ago
  The only page i found AlterNet cited was AlterNet itself, so i would guess no. If only the article provided sources, or at least example, but i guess it's too much to ask To be honest, it's quite easy, wiki moderators use custom search engines to improve links (especially on heavily discussed or heavily viewed article), here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advanced_source_searching#Custom_search_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advanced_source_sear... if one of the engine return AlterNet or CounterPunch articles on political questions, it's probably "heavily used". If not, the author is a probably a liar, the editor certainly don't check articles and the publication is surely as worthless as AlterNet.
  - perching_aix 2y ago
    I checked the article again and it says the following right after the quoted part: > An external links search shows around 2,580 [1] Wikipedia pages linking to CounterPunch, around 2,400 [2] linking to the Daily Kos, and around 1,640 [3] linking to AlterNet. [1] https://archive.is/PWPNB https://archive.is/PWPNB [2] https://archive.is/R19OZ https://archive.is/R19OZ [3] https://archive.is/kNtgq https://archive.is/kNtgq Considering how many pages there are on Wikipedia, and how many of these results are notes and talk pages, I think one can conclusively determine that these sites are in fact not "widely used" sources. This isn't to say they're aren't questionable or shouldn't be filtered against of course (nor that they are and should be).