11–20 of 34 posts
Wikipedia is a free enterprise, and therefore completely free to do whatever it wants, including being biased.
I think this article is silly, but I'm responding to you in a more general sense.
Reality has a liberal bias.
I also take issue with Sangers pointing out that scholars wouldn't phrase something in a certain way, or make a certain claim. There's no claim that Wikipedia has scholarly credentials, quite the opposite in fact.
If you're using Wikipedia for anything but a blurb or jumping-off point on a given topic, then the joke is on you to be honest. It's certainly nothing worth getting wound up about.
Why is the article so negative here?
They describe it as a "legendary creature". Uh-huh.
Meanwhile, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse ...no mentions of horses possibly being other things. Why? What are they hiding?
> Sightings in northern Mexico and the southern United States have been verified as canids afflicted by mange.[2] According to biologists and wildlife management officials, the chupacabra is an urban legend.[3]
And then you go to the article for horses and...hmmm, no citations referencing articles written by those who argue horses aren't real. Oh, so nobody's ever seen something they thought was a horse but actually wasn't? Why won't Wikipedia present both sides? Why is the existence of horses taken for granted?
It's shameless censorship, and it won't stand.
Die ich rief, die Geister, / Werd' ich nun nicht los
Also: Genie out of the bottle, Pandora's Box
> "A disputed topic is treated neutrally if each viewpoint about it is not asserted but rather presented (1) as sympathetically as possible, bearing in mind that other, competing views must be represented as well, and (2) with an equitable amount of space being allotted to each, whatever that might be."
Because, yes, we should definitely give as much space to viewpoints that the earth is flat as to those that say the earth is round.
Sanger has some really great ideas, apparently. From his linked ballotpedia article on neutrality: > "A disputed topic is treated neutrally if each viewpoint about it is not asserted but rather presented (1) as sympathetically as possible, bearing in mind that other, competing views must be represented as well, and (2) with an equitable amount of space being allotted to each, whatever that might be." Because, yes, we…
Larry Sanger apparently co-founded Wikipedia but I've somehow never heard of him before. Not sure how that escaped me. He's apparently famously critical of Wikipedia. The majority of this article seems to complain about giving facts undue prominence over a "balance" of viewpoints. What's the opposing viewpoint to the truth? Lies? (And his political bias really shows. The Obama article is too positive. The Trump artic…
Sanger has some really great ideas, apparently. From his linked ballotpedia article on neutrality: > "A disputed topic is treated neutrally if each viewpoint about it is not asserted but rather presented (1) as sympathetically as possible, bearing in mind that other, competing views must be represented as well, and (2) with an equitable amount of space being allotted to each, whatever that might be." Because, yes, we…
As long as scientific sources are referenced and the criticisms are acknowledged, what's the problem with having a flat earth Wikipedia article?