3 ms·

Given the mountain of evidence for Wikipedia's left wing bias[1][2][3][4], it seems something ought to change, but hard to answer "how?" I expect to receive ma

Given the mountain of evidence for Wikipedia's left wing bias[1][2][3][4], it seems something ought to change, but hard to answer "how?" I expect to receive many downvotes for this, despite providing high-quality and authoritative sources. Which is not unlike what happens on Wikipedia :) [1]: https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/is-wikipedia-politically-biased https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/is-wikipedia-politically-... [2]: https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-the-regime-captured-wikipedia https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-the-regime-captured-wikipe... [3]: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ [4]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5022797 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5022797

throwaway29812 1y ago
[dead]
unethical_ban 1y ago
Whatever the merits of those articles, the idea of calling editors "evil" for debating the sudden addition of Erika Kirk is not decent or neutral.
- lazzlazzlazz 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - unethical_ban 1y ago
    Im not the only other participant in this discussion, and I didn't downvote you.
HankStallone 1y ago
[flagged]
atmavatar 1y ago
Considering the right-wing mainstreams such ideas like holocaust denial, white replacement theory, that the civil war was fought about anything other than slavery, that immigrants secretly steal and eat household pets, etc., it quickly becomes apparent that reality has a left-wing bias.
- LocalH 1y ago
  Either that, or the mainstream right wing is much closer to the far right than they'd ever admit (and that they get pissed when people call them out on it).
sambeau 1y ago
Wikipedia is a global resource, edited by educated—often academic—people all over the world. Why would anyone expect it to conform to the US idea of what is left and right? For most of Europe the American Democrats are to the right of their mainstream right-wing parties. There is no bias to the left. The USA has shifted so far to the right that balance now looks leftist.
- beardyw 1y ago
  Yes, it makes me despair that we in more tolerant societies may need to break away if things get too bad.
- qcnguy 1y ago
  There is huge bias to the left. Wikipedia outright bans right wing sources from being used as citations, including non-US sources like the Daily Mail, so it's not true that it's something to do with US bias. This isn't due to a quality problem. Daily Mail articles are usually highly accurate and they publish voluminously. It's because leftists on Wikipedia ban conservatives as part of their relentless ideological war, as they do in every other context.
  - defrost 1y ago
    > Daily Mail articles are usually highly accurate ... Six decades of personal exposure to The Daily Mail and UK tabloid gutter press says otherwise. Leaving aside its questionable history as a paper founded by an admirer of Mussolini and a supporter of Nazi Germany, its questionable present having remained in ownership by family within which the apples remained firmly attached to the tree, The Daily Heil has a business model predicated upon clickbait, outrage, deliberately misleading and emotionally loaded falsehoods and the entire gantlet of fake news predating modern social media, mobile devices, the world wide web, and the internet. eg: Woman, 63, 'becomes PREGNANT in the mouth' with baby squid after eating calamari (2012) ~ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2159692/Womans-mouth-falls-pregnant-squid-biting-sea-creature-scientists-claim.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2159692/Woma... I question whether in fact you've read the rag in question, your comment has the hallmark of deliberate trolling.
snowe2010 1y ago
The mountain of evidence you supplied is just evidence that republicans more often than not are involved in unsavory things. Hence the change you see with the think tanks, because they generally do not make the news in the same way that a pedophile politician does. Neutrality is telling the truth, not saying nice things about “both sides”.

throwaway29812 1y ago

[dead]

unethical_ban 1y ago

Whatever the merits of those articles, the idea of calling editors "evil" for debating the sudden addition of Erika Kirk is not decent or neutral.

lazzlazzlazz 1y ago
[flagged]
- unethical_ban 1y ago
  Im not the only other participant in this discussion, and I didn't downvote you.

HankStallone 1y ago

[flagged]

atmavatar 1y ago

Considering the right-wing mainstreams such ideas like holocaust denial, white replacement theory, that the civil war was fought about anything other than slavery, that immigrants secretly steal and eat household pets, etc., it quickly becomes apparent that reality has a left-wing bias.

LocalH 1y ago
Either that, or the mainstream right wing is much closer to the far right than they'd ever admit (and that they get pissed when people call them out on it).

sambeau 1y ago

Wikipedia is a global resource, edited by educated—often academic—people all over the world. Why would anyone expect it to conform to the US idea of what is left and right? For most of Europe the American Democrats are to the right of their mainstream right-wing parties. There is no bias to the left. The USA has shifted so far to the right that balance now looks leftist.

beardyw 1y ago
Yes, it makes me despair that we in more tolerant societies may need to break away if things get too bad.
qcnguy 1y ago
There is huge bias to the left. Wikipedia outright bans right wing sources from being used as citations, including non-US sources like the Daily Mail, so it's not true that it's something to do with US bias. This isn't due to a quality problem. Daily Mail articles are usually highly accurate and they publish voluminously. It's because leftists on Wikipedia ban conservatives as part of their relentless ideological war, as they do in every other context.
- defrost 1y ago
  > Daily Mail articles are usually highly accurate ... Six decades of personal exposure to The Daily Mail and UK tabloid gutter press says otherwise. Leaving aside its questionable history as a paper founded by an admirer of Mussolini and a supporter of Nazi Germany, its questionable present having remained in ownership by family within which the apples remained firmly attached to the tree, The Daily Heil has a business model predicated upon clickbait, outrage, deliberately misleading and emotionally loaded falsehoods and the entire gantlet of fake news predating modern social media, mobile devices, the world wide web, and the internet. eg: Woman, 63, 'becomes PREGNANT in the mouth' with baby squid after eating calamari (2012) ~ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2159692/Womans-mouth-falls-pregnant-squid-biting-sea-creature-scientists-claim.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2159692/Woma... I question whether in fact you've read the rag in question, your comment has the hallmark of deliberate trolling.

snowe2010 1y ago

The mountain of evidence you supplied is just evidence that republicans more often than not are involved in unsavory things. Hence the change you see with the think tanks, because they generally do not make the news in the same way that a pedophile politician does. Neutrality is telling the truth, not saying nice things about “both sides”.