31–40 of 105 posts
Not just political. Half the articles I read are spun like pr pieces lately, at least when it comes to organizations and people (even dead people) Random one I read last night > The realization that Fitzgerald had improved as a novelist to point that Gatsby was a masterwork was immediately evident to certain members of the literary world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._Scott_Fitzgerald Editors aren’t even trying…
Yawn, yet another right winger claiming that their terrible views are unpopular because of censorship when really its because most people simply disagree. See also, them advocating to read hidden/downvoted comments because "There is a wealth of information found in views that are not widely held or considered controversial.". https://battlepenguin.com/tech/read-from-the-bottom/ Anyone who reads hidden/downvoted comme…
Right wing views are objectively censored on social media and Wikipedia. “Idiotic rants” are valid free speech and censorship of profanity is a deflection.
A confounder here is that social media inherits a lot of american political bias, and america has no mainstream left. Right leaning people interpret center and even center-right positions as "leftist" but that doesn't make it so.
The article references https://infogalactic.com as a WP alternative. Constrast: https://infogalactic.com/info/Graham_Linehan with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Linehan - I think the author may have a point. Regardless of what you think about the person in question, the former seems far more encyclopaedic and neutral (though perhaps missing a necessary paragraph on his unpopular beliefs).
Infogalactic, not so much. Complaining that Wikipedia is a source of propaganda and then citing Infogalactic as a balance is a mistake on the order of comparing Reuters and the Babylon Bee.
I refer you to https://infogalactic.com/info/Bibhorr
For an example of a biased and probably state-backed Wikipedia editor, see the example of Philip Cross. I very casually edit Wikipedia, a few times a year, and I within an hour of certain changes ran into this "individual". Cross is almost certainly a team of people, and they didn't fully remove my edits, but it was very clear that certain topics are heavily monitored and shaped. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trendi…
As someone who wants Wikipedia to stop begging me for money it doesn't really need, I want that to be the main complaint here. I don't want it to be about what the Wikimedia Foundation is spending that money on, because suddenly the story becomes a referendum on whether you like the subject of their donations or not. What they're spending on doesn't actually matter very much, and focusing on it turns the issue into a…
For an example of a biased and probably state-backed Wikipedia editor, see the example of Philip Cross. I very casually edit Wikipedia, a few times a year, and I within an hour of certain changes ran into this "individual". Cross is almost certainly a team of people, and they didn't fully remove my edits, but it was very clear that certain topics are heavily monitored and shaped. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trendi…
This from a site that brings you such nuggets of wisdom like In the past few years, I’ve become increasingly more aware at how conservatives will simply state the facts, or praise what they appreciate, when an ideological adversary dies. In contrast, progressives and our legacy media will often write horrific hit pieces when someone on the opposite end of the spectrum passes away. No bias there at all.
I do enjoy reading the Wikipedia article on particular hot button topics. And medical articles are also very frequently biased/agenda driven. Often it's a complete fantasy omitting any real world painful facts. I'm easily entertained but a recent one from a week ago was the article on Monkeypox outbreak within the UK[0]. The current UK strategy from the likes of PHE is to vaccinate gay & bisexual men. It's been a sor…
I'm confused about what you're implying has been "sanitized" from this article. there's no indication in the edit history that someone has added or removed any information about the vaccine strategy.
But there are edits and reverts and removed versions of the article... So what are you getting at?