They’ve always have had a leftist bias like most of big tech. https://x.com/therabbithole84/status/1957598712693452920?s=4...
aka, biased towards reality
Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
101–110 of 496 posts
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd love some examples of specific pages.
The "Philip Cross" controversy is relevant here, I think: https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/banning/
The ArbCom is the worst of the lot: they proclaim themselves to be a supreme court, but they are closer to riot cops or a drumhead trial.
See also Canceling Disputes: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-social-inqui...
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The only specific example from that nypost article is about Fox News not being allowed as a source. Fox news has been found in court to be guilty of defamation and has argued in court that it cannot be considered news, only entertainment. So do you want reality or reality TV on Wikipedia? Should we consider Ancient Aliens as a source?
Fox News argued in court that their political commentary programming isn't news. They didn't argue that none of their programming is news.
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#104Honestly Wikipedia+Archive.org remaining online have national security implications (not just USA, but any democracy). Though I'd wager the current administration would take a different view.
> national security implications (not just USA, but any democracy)
That's not really "national," is it?
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#105They’ve always have had a leftist bias like most of big tech. https://x.com/therabbithole84/status/1957598712693452920?s=4...
That's a fake Wikipedia screenshot! That line doesn't exist in the actual article and didn't at the time when that tweet was written, and does not even fit in the context. To me, this is at best an example for how much higher the quality is on Wikipedia than in average social media like X.
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In fact it’s the same values that “science” stands on: do our best everyday and continue to try improving. Scientists realized there is no "Truth", only a series of better and better models approximating it. But philosophers still talk about Truth, they didn't get the message. As long as we are using leaky abstractions - which means all the time - we can't capture Truth. There is no view from nowhere.
> Scientists realized there is no "Truth", only a series of better and better models approximating it. > it What is "it", if not truth?
> What is "it", if not truth?
There's a misconception in this thread and commonly elsewhere.
Scientists aren't after truth. They're after facts.
Truth depends on context. Facts are indisputable.
Imagine you're looking at your computer screen and you see green. Someone else looking at their computer screen might be red/green color blind and might see a shade of brown. The color being green and red can simultaneously be true. But the fact might be that the displayed color is a mix of certain EM frequencies, and each person's brain interprets those frequencies differently.
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#107Wikipedia has plenty of propaganda. It's often at the fringes of knowledge, in niche subjects where there isn't yet an established group of proponents and detractors. It can be quite subtle too, will fool most laypeople, even those who are otherwise intellectually savvy. It's only when a subject becomes popular that the propaganda gets recognized and rectified.
And? Share an example. This reads like conspiratorial thinking without any evidence.
This is kind of an unreasonable request. The OP is making claim of a general trend not obscure and subtle bias on any single article. Informally the claim feels true from my experience with Wikipedia and it makes sense that a small number of editors would have a wider bias. Just think central limit theorem here.
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#108Wikipedia has one great feature... you can see all the editing history.
Something happened, a war started, someone did X, someone else did Y... you open wikipedia, see all the "current situation" bias, open the history tab and look at the article from before happened.
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#109Wikipedia is a good source for certain kinds of information. If you ask it about anything political it's going to be from a certain slant and the most informative part of the page will be the Talk page which explains what people would like on the page that isn't there, or shouldn't be on the page but is
Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks
#110Wikipedia is a good source for certain kinds of information. If you ask it about anything political it's going to be from a certain slant and the most informative part of the page will be the Talk page which explains what people would like on the page that isn't there, or shouldn't be on the page but is
What examples of this are there? I've usually found Wikipedia to be quite equal opportunity, well rounded, and factual.
They have their NPOV[1] policy, and seem impressively unbiased to me, given the various divisive situations they have to try to cover.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_v...