2 ms·
That's a seriously weird paper. They're showing different sentiment around left/right leaning people and claim lack of neutrality without even mentioning the po
by viraptor 2y ago
That's a seriously weird paper. They're showing different sentiment around left/right leaning people and claim lack of neutrality without even mentioning the possibility that maybe the criticised people were actually assholes.
Think about the results this way: if you inserted enough praise for Hitler into Wikipedia, their result would show Wikipedia as being more neutral. What does that say about their chosen method?
- 0xy 2y agoThe figures stretch back hundreds of years, ironically even to the team Democrats and Republicans were ideologically flipped. It shows a pretty clear bias. Just reading some of the articles confirms as such. Biden's son is credibly accused of peddling influence for cash with some of the proceeds going to his father and it's a 'conspiracy theory' (with citations from far left leaning papers and no counterbalance). This is why one of Wikipedia's founders says it is ideologically biased.
- viraptor 2y agoNothing here addresses the issue I raised. How would you tell whether it's clear bias rather than genuine reflection on the people in the reviewed articles?
- 0xy 2y agoBecause it is statistically impossible. As I said, the parties have totally flipped at least once. Bias beyond that point makes no sense. Democrats were pro slavery if you go back far enough. Bias still exists back then.