5 ms·

> so much so that there's a wikipedia page dedicated to the falsehoods Not detracting from the merits of your statement, but Wikipedia is not neutral, it is bi

> so much so that there's a wikipedia page dedicated to the falsehoods Not detracting from the merits of your statement, but Wikipedia is not neutral, it is biased politically/ideologically, so it should not be used as a fair "measure" of things.

radiorick 7mo ago
Wikipedia is one of the more neutral point-of-view sources on the internet these days given its wide range of editors and consensus process. Calling it biased/ideological is a recent trend pushed by certain billionaires who didn't like their DOGE corruption being exposed.
- orbital-decay 7mo ago
  There's nothing recent about the most popular media being manipulated and/or biased. Discussions on this forum date back two decades, however the specific narrative depends on the context.
tbossanova 7mo ago
Literally every information source has biases. We are human after all. Well, most of us. If you reject Wikipedia on this you basically have to reject everything anyone says, ever
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7mo ago
  It's rejecting Wikipedia strictly as a means to measure who lies more; even discounting ideological bias, I'm sure other people who are less scrutinized and publicized tell just as many, if not more, lies. They wouldn't have a Wikipedia page because relatively few people will care to read about Joe Nobody telling his wife that he was at a friend's house after he gets back from the strip club. With respect to ideological bias, I strongly doubt that other Presidents never made "false or misleading statements" but I can't seem to find, for example, the page of "False or misleading statements made by Joe Biden". It seems a stretch to say he made none, to the point one might wonder about the discrepancy.
  - fifilura 7mo ago
    That is whataboutism just there. Why is there no wikipedia page about basketball points scored by Lionel Messi? I bet he made some in his life?

radiorick 7mo ago

Wikipedia is one of the more neutral point-of-view sources on the internet these days given its wide range of editors and consensus process. Calling it biased/ideological is a recent trend pushed by certain billionaires who didn't like their DOGE corruption being exposed.

orbital-decay 7mo ago
There's nothing recent about the most popular media being manipulated and/or biased. Discussions on this forum date back two decades, however the specific narrative depends on the context.

tbossanova 7mo ago

Literally every information source has biases. We are human after all. Well, most of us. If you reject Wikipedia on this you basically have to reject everything anyone says, ever

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7mo ago
It's rejecting Wikipedia strictly as a means to measure who lies more; even discounting ideological bias, I'm sure other people who are less scrutinized and publicized tell just as many, if not more, lies. They wouldn't have a Wikipedia page because relatively few people will care to read about Joe Nobody telling his wife that he was at a friend's house after he gets back from the strip club. With respect to ideological bias, I strongly doubt that other Presidents never made "false or misleading statements" but I can't seem to find, for example, the page of "False or misleading statements made by Joe Biden". It seems a stretch to say he made none, to the point one might wonder about the discrepancy.
- fifilura 7mo ago
  That is whataboutism just there. Why is there no wikipedia page about basketball points scored by Lionel Messi? I bet he made some in his life?