51–60 of 129 posts
They said the OED definitions are based on imperfect collections of common use, and aren’t “right” or “wrong”.
They also said the OED often uses SCOTUS decisions as a source, which creates an incestuous link.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation, please.
Just ask anyone over 40...
Precisely, it lost its trusted status, but the GP posts that WP trusts publications that have gone bananas. So your example speaks in favor of Wikipedia's reliability.
This study should have been controlled by asking whether courts had access to the curated legal databases (primarily LexisNexis, I imagine): > "...the increase was bigger for citations by lower courts — the High Court — and mostly absent for citations by appellate courts — the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal." Secondly, is it possible that the study designers themselves used LexisNexis to research their Wikipedia a…
The 77 cases that were given a Wikipedia article saw a 17% increase in citations after publication. One significant outcome of giving a case a Wikipedia article described in the paper but not in the article is that the case receives an infobox visible at the top of search results for most search engines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation, please.
IIRC, as an example, Newsweek lost its trusted status as it adopted a news tabloid format. Further, they no longer have fact checkers and do not print corrections. Surely that's a disqualification right there. Though I don't see that specific criteria listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines FWIW, here's Wikipedia's roundup of sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources…
This is why in itself Wikipedia cannot be a trusted source but should be treated as purely, an extension of the media. They choose who they can cite and who they cannot.
Wikipedia has a very clear pro-science and pro-reality bias, and that's a good thing. You would not want news like OAN to be cited on their.
And since the news of today is only interested in the most extreme, that's the facts you'll find on Wikipedia.
Truthfully a much worse problem is that an average user cannot edit on Wikipedia. To edit on Wikipedia you need to have an obsessive personality, to constantly guard your edits and keep other editors from removing them.
And that bias is much worse than any other, you'll find a ton of information on matters that attract obsessive personalities, and much less on more normal subjects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia is not perfectly unbiased, but if you honestly believe it is even comparable to PragerU you should seriously talk to someone about your biases and perception of the world. There are left-wing equivalents of PragerU (ex: the Gravel Institute) that are just as far away from Wikipedia as PragerU is.
I think it depends on the topic and section of wikipedia. If you get into the political area's of wikipeda, I think the bias of Wikipedia is pretty clear polar to that of PragerU. If you stick to the pure hard sciences (physics as an example) and non-controversial events (like an earthquake) then sure they are unbiased
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia is not perfectly unbiased, but if you honestly believe it is even comparable to PragerU you should seriously talk to someone about your biases and perception of the world. There are left-wing equivalents of PragerU (ex: the Gravel Institute) that are just as far away from Wikipedia as PragerU is.
I think it depends on the topic and section of wikipedia. If you get into the political area's of wikipeda, I think the bias of Wikipedia is pretty clear polar to that of PragerU. If you stick to the pure hard sciences (physics as an example) and non-controversial events (like an earthquake) then sure they are unbiased
As if. This article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question is still up despite having almost zero pertinent sources.[1] Calling that "polar" is nothing short of a stretch.
At most, Wikipedia could be said to have a neo-liberal bias, an ideology upheld by both of the US' political parties, based on policies alone and not on each individual voter's personal and nuanced adherence. The parties are wrongly assumed to be polar opposites on the political spectrum by most US citizens, but they're not.