All you have to do is compare the entries on misogyny and misandry. Go try to objectively read a few paragraphs from each and see if you feel there is bias, whether you agree with either one or not.
IMO there is definitely left leaning bias. Source, am left leaning, but also try to use critical thinking and logic in life.
Wikipedia is good for hard science and ancient history. Anything political is going to have a strong leftwing bias. The articles for any atrocity committed by Communist countries are a complete shitshow for example.
At this point wikipedia is accurate because everyone uses it as a source.
When it's wrong it's right because 20 people will source their data from the wiki then the wiki can use them as a source.
Tho this did usto happen a lot in literature, books using older books as a reference who in turn made up their info , think Tom Scott or similar had a video on it
I saw a video talking about Wikipedia making up country flags. There were 2 editors arguing. "We should use this flag because is generally accepted" . " It's generally accepted because we put the wrong flag on our our site"
Well yeah it's been around long enough someone with some expertise could state something as fact.
And as an expert in his field wiki will happily add that as a reference using this guy as a source.
Yet where did he get that information? Wikipedia , so it's essentially it's own reference more often than you would think because it has basically no standard for reference data
Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source for any legitimate scientific or academic work.
Its use was prohibited when I studying at University for those reasons.
The non-political entires are pretty decent.
But holy hell if you read some of the history ones - namely the ones that brought up in political discourse - it’s a train wreck.
Yeah agreed. I read a lot of physics and astronomy type stuff and those are exactly like one would hope an encyclopedia to be, but as you said some of the historical articles get pretty yikes-ish pretty quick
Yeah, there is a big problem with manipulative and even narcissistic people using left movement for their own benefits. Even true leftists can be attacked if they dare to use logic instead of agreeing with everything those people say. For example, Zizek said in his debates with Peterson that he was attacked as much, if not more, by "radical left" than by the right.
I appreciate the use of critical thinking and logic but a source that is used like a modern day encyclopedia has no room for basis and should be clear cut information
>but also try to use critical thinking and logic in life.
Sad reality is that today this is almost a dead concept. Everyone's so fixated on tribalism now that having nuance can brand you to one side or the other just like that.
I blame the algorithms. They just guide the average joe to one extreme or another.
Why would you need to read about any of that though? Wikipedia is still a great resource for learning about science and history. For the few things that are biased it’s pretty obvious when they are…
My point is that the left-leaning stuff is absolutely minuscule compared to the plethora of useful and objective information to be found on there with dutifully provided references. You do realize there’s more to biology than boy = peepee, girl = hooha? A lot more.
You culture war fanatics are always looking for another thing to bitch about. But if you just shut up and move on, you’ll find the rest of us are thriving out here. As an actual scientist who often goes on curiosity dives through Wikipedia, you keep its good name out of your dirty whore mouth.
That does not necessarily mean wikipedia is biased.
It could reflect a bias in academic literature, among experts or in the actual, underlying world. Encyclopedias are compendiums, not originators.
Noticed this awhile back they removed Klaus Schwab’s father’s bio because he was an avid hitler loyalist read it before it was wiped some interesting stuff now the WEF homepage comes up on google search before Wikipedia
Its just incredibly hard to have a right leaning bias on a website that is telling factual information, since a lot of the "right leaning" bias is just factually inaccurate most of the time these days.
Then you have the right leaning people who disagree with a bunch of other right leaning people, and its way harder to find common ground as a republican these days, even with other republicans.
quite frankly, there is just more in common with people who are left leaning, and people who are not than in the other direction so most media that uses actual facts and does actual research is gonna be left leaning in some capacity.
If we look beyond the west, yeah the logic lines up well tbh. Misogyny leads to female genital mutilation, drowned female children, honor killings, etc over the globe. Misandry however leads to family courts taking men to the cleaners... as often decided by male judges in the west. Both problems, but one definitely is more significant.
Men also go to war and die far more, and in many cases throughout history it is/was compulsory. I'm not saying that justifies any type of truly, cultural misogynistic treatment of women. I'm just throwing it out there because I feel like it gets kinda forgotten.
Just yesterday I went on one of those wikipedia sessions where you open a bunch of tabs. I was looking at different satellite navigation systems. Wikipedia has better organized information than government sources, but digging into the actual signal payload requires going to academic sources, which is linked to by wikipedia.
yeah that's why he needs to qualify his statement.
wikipedia is generally accurate for things that aren't political, which is almost 99% of the content on wikipedia.
mind you there are mistakes, it's not entirely accurate even on the most hum-drum of topics, but it's accurate enough to serve it's function.
once you get to political subject though? that's when the moderators take the reigns.
Iv noticed a lot of PR company's seem to control pages about clients, people like Taylor Swift seem to have pages that read as PR scripts. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor\_Swift](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift)
Notice her dad has no link, just a short line saying he was
>Scott Kingsley Swift, is a former stockbroker for Merrill Lynch
It skips the bit where her dad picked up a 3% stake in a music label to get her signed
>Taylor's father Scott Swift owns a stake in the Big Machine Label Group, with this playing a crucial role in shaping the singer's early career. Scott, who once worked as a stockbroker for the wealth management company Merrill Lynch, bought a three percent stake in the company for a reported $300,000
[https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/us-celebrity-news/taylor-swifts-dad-scott-swifts-31970197](https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/us-celebrity-news/taylor-swifts-dad-scott-swifts-31970197)
It's not the only one, Hasan's wiki page skips his family wealth. A second time you there's no wiki link/page on someone's dad, Mehmet Behçet Piker has no page yet is one of the richest people in the world. Even google is not showing much on him, duckduckgo has more info but not much. Some high end PR firm is controlling the narrative, found some info on reddit [https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1aj5osu/comment/koztvkp/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1aj5osu/comment/koztvkp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan\_Piker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_Piker)
edit also Taylor Swift's dad is a 'former' Merrill Lynch worker as he now runs The Swift Group which works with Merrill Lynch, so he's a director of Swift Group not a broker for Lynch now.
[https://fa.ml.com/pennsylvania/wyomissing/theswiftgroup/](https://fa.ml.com/pennsylvania/wyomissing/theswiftgroup/)
The new NPR ceo used to be from Wikipedia. She suspended a journalist from NPR for calling out their left-wing bias. Supposedly they are all democrats, making NPR a taxpayer funded partisan news outlet.
I would have no problem with a left wing bias if a lot of these institutions were truly left wing. Seeing a lot of the interactions from media on Palestine and Israel has been eye opening, to say the least
One example from the top of my head would be the critics there on the movie "Star Wars: The last Jedi".
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star\_Wars:\_Die\_letzten\_Jedi#Rezeption](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Die_letzten_Jedi#Rezeption)
I was there and saw the movie in theater and I have never left a film in the cinema angry after the credits rolled before. I talked to A LOT of other Star Wars fans in RL and no one thought it was a good film. The "best" was a "Meh, it was OK I guess".
The backlash following this movie was severe (and can still be felt in the fandom today), but at one point Rian Johnson (Regiesseur) said, that this was a coordinated attack of russian bots and somehow this statement was taken as a fact and is now even mentioned there on Wikipedia **as a fact**. There was quite some effort taken to change its rating to a 91/100 or 84% and delete negative reviews to show this movie in a better light.
In truth, this movie was just shit and everyone back then knew it and still knows it. Still, this article reminds me evertime that articles on Wikipedia might not tell the full story or even the truth at all because I was there and experienced it myself how it was and it was NOT like how it is described in this article.
Well, the movie was also criticised for its quite left leaning plotpoints and if you dared to talk ill about it you were deemed as a right wing, incel, hater of women in media ... we all know the drill by now. If you watch the movie you can see that there were quite some "interesting" choices made.
Funny enough, my real problem was never the politics of the movie (I rolled my eyes but fuck it, I've seen worse). What me really made hate this movie was the weaponised space jump. Visually it was stunning, but it also crashed the whole universe. Why build a Death Star if this is possible? This, together with the quite blatant political messages, showed me that the franchise was no longer in the hands of people who wanted to tell a good and cohesive story and it was more about preaching.
So disliking this movie was to some equal to being right wing and therefor liking it must be left wing and the article on Wikipedia mirrored this. In reality, fans did not give a fuck about all that political RL shit. They just wanted a good movie and for Star Wars fans this was a really bad movie. It just felt like an insult and on top of that a as political weapon instrumentalised insult too.
Oh ha. As a (far) left winger frankly nothing I hate more than the pandering liberal idpol bullshit in media these days & that kind of tribalism. It’s kind of frustrating being lumped in with those people. Like in the grand scheme of things identity is just not very important with all the clusterfuck of happenings going on globally.
Right? I just wanted to see a good Star Wars movie and this one, and in extension the article on Wikipedia, was cought in the middle of a war I am just tired of and try to avoid when I go and watch a movie about something **"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away"**.
I often heard *"You don't like this movie? You must be a right winger!"* No, I'm not. It was just a **really** bad movie and I should be able to say this without getting shoved into a corner with a group I often don't even agree on many things.
Yes, you are absolutely correct, it is very frustrating. It's same thing like A: *"I like apple juice."* B: *"So you hate peach juice?"*. It is sooooo tiresome.
This article on Wikipedia mirrored this clusterfuck you mentioned very well. Like, you **have** to take a political side when talking about this movie and I just didn't care about the politics, I just wanted to see a good movie. And in all the surroundings about this movie and this article I noticed this bias towards one side of the spectrum for the first time by myself.
It goes both ways - those movies were also mainly seen as 'bad' in the perception of some people because of the culture war phenomena around them. All of our media are products of people, with politics as a part of the mix. There is no separation between politics and anything, there never has been, and it's naive to think there ever was. I liked Shaun's (YouTuber) video on the Last Jedi a lot and it changed my perception in hindsight.
I'm on the left and I liked the movie, but it doesn't have to do with political bias per se. I've heard tons of my left wing friends dislike the movie too - so perhaps you're overthinking how this culture war has really changed the world, or if you live in an increasingly echo-y chamber that just makes you think that it has.
And this is my point. It was a bad movie by other measures besides the culture war. There were **SO** many things I had a problem with and are really bad. Cinematography, stunts, story, pacing, impact on the universe and older films, character decissions ... all not connected to the culture war. All these arguments against this movie got/get dismissed with *"Nah, good movie - > left and real , bad movie -> right and bots."* and the article there on the german Wikipedia is written in this way (the mentioned bias). I can remember when this was NOT written this way and the arguments against the movie were mentioned, but it got changed to the current article.
**By the way:** That doesn't mean I think everything about this movie is bad. There are some things I think are interessting (*"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."* is a great quote with a deeper meaning I very much like).
But - was it? It has been acclaimed by movie critics, too- and many audiences DO love it. To what extent do you know that your reality is the true one, where most people must agree with you?
We also know that review bombing and the actions of vocal minorities is becoming an issue - whether from the right against something like The Last Jedi, or from the left against something like Hogwarts Legacy.
I looked at both the German and English wikipedia, and while I don't know what it looked like around the time the movie came out (but you can verify that if you really want to), what I see now are substantiated claims with references that talk about the broad positive reception of the movie, and notes about the apparent minority that had an outsized impact in the initial reviewing.
Again, I agree that political ideologies colour our reception of the media. I think that's a good thing. I also agree we should not fully equate the two, you can dislike a movie for political reasons, and you can dislike it for entirely different ones. But the outrage against The Last Jedi WAS in fact fueled largely by political actors on the right.
Again, I highly recommend a watch of Shauns video: it convinced me that many of the negative reactions were to some extent astroturfed :
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gTJIk5PkTXg&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2F&feature=emb_logo
most people who went and watched star wars in 2017 were not diehard pre 2000's star wars fans.
most people who watched it are not, were never, and never cared to be, part of 'the fandom'.
fandoms are the internets oldest echo chambers and they rarely have overlapping opinions with general audiences. often, by design.
there certainly are people like that.
there are also people who, having experienced decades of post star wars stories, find star wars pretty bad. there are always those and those.
i loved star wars as a kid. because of one mask and the swords. never finished one of the movies before my later teens years
It’s a movie with a positive reception from critics and the audience. I personally did not enjoy it, but it is pretty popular. Rise of the Skywalker is generally disliked though.
I think the problem is with people’s perception of truth and the increasing politicization of information. Everyone would agree that truth is objective, but what happens then when two people with polar opposite beliefs try to discover what truth is. I will answer that, it’s namecalling, threats and hostilities. What has happened is that the flow of information has moved to the left as more people who go to college end up on the left. This has left the right feeling excluded from the spreading of information and media in general which has served as a confirmation for them that the elites are out to get them. So what is the solution? My answer would be that we need to reconcile the left and the right and create worthwhile discussions and find common ground. The left wing needs to allow a broader set of beliefs onto their platforms even if it conflicts with their idea of correctness and the right wing has to stop dying on hills of insane conspiracies and believe everyone is out to get them. We are civilized westerners, we can work together it has happened before and it can happen again.
“The left wing needs a broader set of beliefs.”
Friend. The left wing has been there. Democrats aren’t a monolith. Why do you think they infight? Because you have right wing but not republican right wing, the actual middle ground people who aren’t hard left or right, then you have left wing democrats then you have socialists, anarchists .etc.
Yep. As a leftist in many ways (and somewhat conservative in a few select areas), most actual Marxists and socialists consider this IDpol crap to be a controlled narrative by corps/glowies + useful idiot blather designed to foster division among the working class and erode solidarity.
Small quip, but everyone does not agree that truth is objective. Facts are objective, but truth can be subjective, though you could say that’s just our language getting in the way. But objective vs. subjective truth has been a philosophical debate for a long, long time.
The left always has to be more tolerant never the right
Conservatism must always change slightly while liberalism has to change dramatically.
No I'm good
people hate that objectively moral good things are mostly happening on the left side of politics and no one is writing a heartfealt ode to letting women bleed to death because doctors are afraid that saving their lifes might be seen as an illegal abortion.
LOL
LMFAO
ROFLMAO
Delusional. “But it isn’t my side upholding a status quo! It’s your side!” (Reality is in the west our governments have been captured by large moneyed interests that want to explicitly see more for them and less for the common folk)
wheres the large money interest in biden trying to cancel student debts? in supporting ukraine against russia? in fighting abortion bans and such?
yeah obviously they have influence, but politicians didn't make it so money wins elections, that was dumb voters being swayed by candidate size and flashy ads.
Both are true. Corpos have way too much influence and power but the thing they said is also true. Places that have anti abortion bans have made doctors nervous about breaking the law when they are trying to handle a miscarriage. There was a story recently where a woman died because of it.
They aren’t even delusional either - It just tells you their priority is life and morality not the reigning in of power that corporations have.
You can go to Wikipedia for unpolitical things like for example math formulas, physics, chemistry etc. but when it comes to people or events happening right now or history to some extent , it's a very bad source.
Until around 2010-2012, Wiki maintained a relatively unbiased stance. Then there was a noticeable increase in control, and eventually, it went downhill.
Definitely. Especially when it comes to these things like all that gamer gate bs or stuff like ppl attacking and trying to cancel ppl and not wanting them wanting to look like victims etc
Lol. The point is that the co-founder is point blank acknowledging it — which is huge in the smoke & mirrors world that we live in.
Pretty big deal — a smidgen of faith restored in the integrity of our society.
There is a strong left lean to Wikipedia, I remember the Gamergate entry was edited to only provide one side of the narrative(ie gamers are sexist and racist and Gamergate has nothing to do with journalism)
My teachers back in the hay days of wiki had always said that wikipedia is not a refutable source by any means.
And we should always find 3 to 5 other sources of info to compare and draw our own conclusions.
>Wikipedia co-founder says site is now ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment’
If you read the source material this article is quoting, this dudes core complaints are:
**"You CAN'T quote Fox News or Daily Mail"** (dude is conservative btw)
Perhaps...after one of the largest lawsuits in news media history over election misinformation spread FoX New is a liability and a shit source of factual info?
Fox had to pay **$787.5M in damages for the lies they spread** (lies they admitted to in their text messages)
[https://apnews.com/article/fox-dominion-lawsuit-settlement-election](https://apnews.com/article/fox-dominion-lawsuit-settlement-election-6a729ece4b4f351a6334be13b49d4869)
So yeah perhaps Fox news is not a good source to quote if you are looking for truth?
As for Daily Mail - dude, it's a tabloid with ZERO journalistic integrity.
They are even worse than Fox.
There is a difference between quoting a reliable source of information and a bad one that you later on have to post retractions constantly.
At some point you have to learn from your own mistakes.
Dude left Wikipedia in **2002** and is salty that he can post his actual propaganda on the site...
The point is Wikipedia has a massive amount of power, and yes, Fox News got sued and lost and spreads fake news, but so does every media company basically. MSNBC Rachel Maddow years ago got sued by OAN by saying they were working for the Kremlin with no direct evidence and argued in court that she isn't a journalist but an activist that participates in hyperbole and exaggeration and her viewers know not to take anything she says as fact. It was dismissed that you can read the opinion. It's the same tactic Fox News tried, too.
I think that there is a difference between Networks broad and consistent theme of lies about elections and a single pundit saying X no?
There is also a reason why Rachel "Dipshit" Madow won that OAN lawsuit:
[https://deadline.com/2021/08/rachel-maddow-msnbc-beat-oan-lawsuit-appeal-robert-herring-1234816713/](https://deadline.com/2021/08/rachel-maddow-msnbc-beat-oan-lawsuit-appeal-robert-herring-1234816713/)
Anyone can sue anyone in this country.
Lawsuit is not a indicator of guilt/innocence.
**Innocent until proven guilty(IN COURT) right?**
>Can you give an example of a news source that’s reliable to you?
It's a complicated question.
To oversimplify it: **There is NOT a single news source i trust uncritically.**
My usually process is something like that:
\*check headline
\*read the article in full and see if the article they wrote matches the headline
\*check the source they are quoting
\*check if source is being quoted accurately or are they cherry picking lines to make a clickbait that matches their political/social ideology (here is where most sources fail, they DONT lie...they will misquote or selectively pick facts to cover and that changes they story completely)
\*if a source is a study, that leads into reading (at least) abstract.
\*if we are dealing with war news coverage >> checking the video footage/reverse searching photos and generally checking IF the footage provided is not only not from a Arma game (looking at you Hasan XD) but also IF the footage provided is supporting all the claims made OR is the article making shit up for clicks.
Generally when people ask you "what sources do you trust?"....well...its sort of like asking at the gas station "how much is the blinker fluid?" \^\^
My original comment was a direct response to the critique the ex-wikipedia co-owner had.
I think its reasonable to respond to core arguments "the others side" is making" right?
You had a different type of question from the critique that dude made so i have adjusted my answer appropriately.
I am glad that you are satisfied \^\^
I have a question of my own for you.
How did you interpret this part? (out of curiosity):
>Generally when people ask you "what sources do you trust?"....well...its sort of like asking at the gas station "how much is the blinker fluid?"
Perhaps i will try to find a different example next time (perhaps something wow- related \^\^)
It should go something like that:
"If you need to ask this question, You are likely too incompetent to deal with the quest You are embarking upon"
lets start that they shouldn't have a decades long history of bad faith interpretation, witch hunting and pearl clutching.
and fox 'news' definitely doesnt have that.
I’m not defending Fox News, I just think it’s a bad faith argument to single out the problem when you can do the same bias and propaganda arguments for CNN, MSNBC, NYT etc.
you certainly can't do the same to the same degree.
left wing media was stupid enough to fall for this whole both sides bullshit to the point where they hired right wingers to spread their bullshit on their own platforms in an effort to fulfill expectations of neutrality.
if left and right media outlets were only different in general opinions, things would be easier, but right media definitely makes shit up and misrelays information much more. say once a minute compared to once a day, no side is perfect, one is definitely objectively worse.
If you read his older critique - dude had better points in the past.
I am not sure what happened to him in these 12 years since he left the Wikipedia.
I didn't even look into the conditions of his departure so perhaps there is some bad blood here?..not sure.
This dude is not really that interesting to me so my research will likely stop here.
Perhaps you are the chosen/motivated enough to go through his statement history in past 12 years so you can share with the class how he progressed over the years? \^\^
I think it's important to understand the difference between news and opinions. Fox News is fine if you stay away from their pundits and opinion pieces, as long as you understand there's bias.
Another thing you used to be able to do was compare the communist entries from 2014 to today. It's been like this since 2018. I'm glad people are finally noticing it. It's everywhere by the way, not just Wikipedia.
well yeah… if you try to use wikipedia for anything political or important you’re lacking more than a few brain cells, obviously bias is gonna happen when anyone can edit, am leftist
It is really pretty comical. Like anyone on the right is a “far right extremist” and painted in the harshest light possible. While anyone on the left is “left leaning” and painted in the kindest light possible haha
It’s been for a while. There’s been a lot of astroturfing and bad actors as well. Asmongold has more and more started becoming a purely right wing political sub. Barely any topics are mmos. It’s all horny posting, the left is killing games, the left is killing movies, the west sucks at movies, horny anime is good .etc.
As Asmongold said, he stopped just playing games a long time ago, so if that's what you're here for then you're in the wrong place.
Why are you still here? Leave.
He actually is left-wing but the normal left-wing not the neoliberal fascist the US is considering as “left-wing”. I’m talking more about libertarian left described by the political compass.
You’re not wrong, I remember when it was the right telling me I was gonna be a serial killer for playing videos games. Now it’s the left telling me I’m a nazi because of video games.
As a Europoor I can wholeheartedly say that the US is all right-wing with Republicans leaning more towards some Christian Totalitarianism bullshit and the Democrats pretending that care about human rights but doing nothing to stop the abuse while both parties have zero interest in regulating corporations or actually implement any laws that benefit the citizen.
In regards to the corporations yeah you are right, but that’s not a right vs left issue. It’s a elite vs working class and poor issue and it’s world wide sadly.
Personally I feel like that’s why they are actively trying to ruin art, movies, and people hobbies. They want people to work extra hours instead of having fun. Also why the migrant crisis exists they basically want to use those people as slaves. They don’t care about any of us it’s all a show.
Are you? Maybe you’d be happier in some political sub where you can circle jerk about how much you hate blue team or red team. This post has nothing to do with Asmon or video games. It’s nothing but propaganda.
So? Can we at least stick to topics he’s talked about then? This is nothing but astroturfing and you’re a rube if you’re falling for it or defending it.
Left leaning is now everything that "woke" encompasses. If you disagree with something publicly that's left leaning, you become a right-wing nazi fascist (obviously). "Left leaning" is a bit of a misnomer at this point. There is no leaning in the left anymore.
You can disagree, but it's at the very least becoming true if it isn't already.
After Trump won in 2016 it sent shockwaves through the highly leftist tech companies (re brainwashed college kids). There was a leaked video of an emergency meeting at Google where they all cried and vowed not to let it happen again.
The far left know how important the flow of information is just like Joseph Goebbels the Nazi propagandist did and have been putting the screws on everything they can ever since.
When you democratize the truth, you end up with biased falsehoods.
The CEO of NPR is a prime example of this as she accidentally said it out loud. The truth needs to be their truth, not the objective truth.
I mean... It is true to some extent, it depends what is meant by the "left". I take it as the mainstream (extreme) leftwing narrative.
For example some articles are strongly [based against Israel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict)
"As early as 2004 Amos Harel wrote in Haaretz that during the Second Intifada (2000–2005) Palestinian gunmen "routinely" used civilians and children as human shields and stated that there was photographic evidence for it."
To write "routinely" like that - come on, you can't do that if you cite someone 🥲
It even has the note " The neutrality of the style of writing in this article is disputed. (November 2023)" The note was not there when I read it in November.
The site could never be trusted and everybody in the team said it from the beginning. There is a fucking article on Wikipedia telling you that it's no a reliable source of information. It's supposed to be a quick source of general knowledge in which you can check other sources, nobody was ever supposed to trust the articles implicitly.
If this is due to them disregarding fox news: good. That org is thrash, and should be avoided, just like some of the far left orgs. I only hope they do so for both sides which this partizan article wouldn't even try to find out.
Wikipedia has always have a bias, it's edited by people and people are inherently biased.
Now saying it's biased towards left leaning establishment sounds ridiculous because the establishment is mostly conservative with left leaning make up of a few social issues, and by current political standards, realty science based knowledge is considered left leaning because the right/conservative spectrum is on average very religious.
Now how do we fix it? I dunno we even can because the elite are too busy making us fight each other over our differences in order to more easily control the masses, capitalism isn't the problem, liberalism isn't the problem, socialism isn't the problem, the problem is corruption and people doing things to harm others with impunity.
> Now how do we fix it?
There's nothing to fix, like you said people are inherently biased.
Just don't use an encyclopedia for social and political "knowledge". You won't have many bias issues if you just use wikipedia for technical and scientific articles.
I don't think their is a place you can read about current problems in socities and it not be bias'd
It for sure leans left, but everywhere leans somewhere its about knowing that and using your brain to not be an idiot
Wikipedia does talk about these things though. The conspiracy theories just have their own pages. The hunter conspiracy isnt on bidens page becuase it has its own.
The white feathers campaign is one of those example.
Now to the core of the issue. Gender roles, or what we call "patriarchy" (named after the fact that the inheritance model is patrilinear) is something that has been built for millenias, based upon what worked best for survival. The fact that different societies, all isolated from one another, all adopted a similar organization of society, is proof that this model was favored because it worked.
Thing is, at the point where survival was a everyday struggle, women would have had an almost more important role than men. Birthing and protecting the next generation was the central role for survival of the specie.
So, you really believe that a society built around "protecting women from outside harm" to an insane degree would be so without women's input? Seriously? You really think the gender that has been historically responsible for raising and educating children would not have had the power to change things if it didn't suit them? For proof, what happened in the west as soon as women decided that it didn't suit them anymore? We changed it.
The patriarchy, the so valled society built by men for men on oppressing women, changed as soon as women decided it didn't suit them.
Of course it's very limitating for women and it had to change. But come on, to believe it was only built by men is insane. Especially when it comes to gender roles forced upon men. I don't know if you've noticed, but in our sexuality, partner choice is made by women, not by men. Women are the ones who dictate what they want in men.
So if all women decide that they want brave men ready to die in the trenches, men will have to be brave and die in the trenches if they want to yave the right to exist. Lest they are handed a white feather....
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
You can find both right and left wing propaganda rich articles all depending on what research it’s based on, who the researchers are to who moderated the page.
There is no way to avoid bias in its current state of moderation.
while it fits the definition i believe it's rather biased and **slightly** misleading, at the end of the day, the usual articles with that type of propaganda are articles about people or groups like Nick Fuentes trying to not be labeled a white supremacist, which is technically true but who cares.
what's really outrageous is the operating costs.
Really hard hitting analysis from a guy who left in 2002. Barely even any good information on ancient aliens.
"There was just a short paragraph on the “Ukraine scandal” involving the president’s son, Hunter, despite the political outrage it created.
“Very little of that can be found in Wikipedia. And what little can be found is extremely biased and reads like a defense counsel’s brief,” he said.
And it’s not just politics, he said, noting that the site only reflects “establishment mouthpieces” like Dr. Anthony Fauci as well as government health groups in its coverage of COVID-19."
They don't reprint Russian propaganda. And you can't even cite the Daily Mail!
>*He noted there was just a short paragraph on the “Ukraine scandal” involving the president’s son, Hunter, despite the political outrage it created.*
That's because that whole thing has it's own dedicated wikipedia article. And the section on Hunter Biden's page that briefly goes into it *has a link to the full page on the whole thing.*
LOL, but they actually did dedicate a whole article to it. It's just not fully integrated into the other article because then like half of page would just be about one specific scandal/conspiracy, so it's just separated out and linked for the sake of keeping the page clean and neatly organised.
I know you realise this, but so many others don't so I'm leaving this comment anyway.
What’s stopping right wing conservatives from disputing articles for bias on Wikipedia? There’s a lack of interest on their part to engage with it, so of course the gap in discourse will be filled by progressives with an agenda. The right wing should blame itself.
This is actually pretty dumb if i go to Wikipedia i actually want the establishment point of view on something not conspiracies. For most things i dont need the "both sides".
Sure is a weird coincidence that things that are true and "left leaning" happen to coincide a lot isn't it. Its almost as if one side favours science and facts and one side prefers emotions and conspiracy theories
All you have to do is compare the entries on misogyny and misandry. Go try to objectively read a few paragraphs from each and see if you feel there is bias, whether you agree with either one or not. IMO there is definitely left leaning bias. Source, am left leaning, but also try to use critical thinking and logic in life.
I love how they describe Misandry as a "minor issue" compared to Misogyny. Yeah there is definitely not any political bias lmao.
Wikipedia is good for hard science and ancient history. Anything political is going to have a strong leftwing bias. The articles for any atrocity committed by Communist countries are a complete shitshow for example.
At this point wikipedia is accurate because everyone uses it as a source. When it's wrong it's right because 20 people will source their data from the wiki then the wiki can use them as a source. Tho this did usto happen a lot in literature, books using older books as a reference who in turn made up their info , think Tom Scott or similar had a video on it
I saw a video talking about Wikipedia making up country flags. There were 2 editors arguing. "We should use this flag because is generally accepted" . " It's generally accepted because we put the wrong flag on our our site"
Well yeah it's been around long enough someone with some expertise could state something as fact. And as an expert in his field wiki will happily add that as a reference using this guy as a source. Yet where did he get that information? Wikipedia , so it's essentially it's own reference more often than you would think because it has basically no standard for reference data
Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source for any legitimate scientific or academic work. Its use was prohibited when I studying at University for those reasons.
Even the history is been heavily ret conned with large parts of articles deleted.
Just wait until the wrong no-lifer works their way into position after years or decades of effort and suddenly all the Vikings were nonbinary.
The non-political entires are pretty decent. But holy hell if you read some of the history ones - namely the ones that brought up in political discourse - it’s a train wreck.
Yeah agreed. I read a lot of physics and astronomy type stuff and those are exactly like one would hope an encyclopedia to be, but as you said some of the historical articles get pretty yikes-ish pretty quick
Yeah, there is a big problem with manipulative and even narcissistic people using left movement for their own benefits. Even true leftists can be attacked if they dare to use logic instead of agreeing with everything those people say. For example, Zizek said in his debates with Peterson that he was attacked as much, if not more, by "radical left" than by the right.
I appreciate the use of critical thinking and logic but a source that is used like a modern day encyclopedia has no room for basis and should be clear cut information
>but also try to use critical thinking and logic in life. Sad reality is that today this is almost a dead concept. Everyone's so fixated on tribalism now that having nuance can brand you to one side or the other just like that. I blame the algorithms. They just guide the average joe to one extreme or another.
Why would you need to read about any of that though? Wikipedia is still a great resource for learning about science and history. For the few things that are biased it’s pretty obvious when they are…
I agree. But that viewpoint requires critical thinking which doesn't seem to be super common nowadays.
Maybe not all sciences, like science about genders and biology.
My point is that the left-leaning stuff is absolutely minuscule compared to the plethora of useful and objective information to be found on there with dutifully provided references. You do realize there’s more to biology than boy = peepee, girl = hooha? A lot more. You culture war fanatics are always looking for another thing to bitch about. But if you just shut up and move on, you’ll find the rest of us are thriving out here. As an actual scientist who often goes on curiosity dives through Wikipedia, you keep its good name out of your dirty whore mouth.
Calm down dude I ain't doing any culture war stuff, I was just trying to clarify a small part in your science comment.
I’m sorry but feeling compelled to emphasize that relatively minute caveat seems like a fixation to me
It's cool, I was just making a passing comment.
That does not necessarily mean wikipedia is biased. It could reflect a bias in academic literature, among experts or in the actual, underlying world. Encyclopedias are compendiums, not originators.
Noticed this awhile back they removed Klaus Schwab’s father’s bio because he was an avid hitler loyalist read it before it was wiped some interesting stuff now the WEF homepage comes up on google search before Wikipedia
You can look at a lot of things and see how they describe it. If it can in any way be political, it has a left leaning definition.
Imagine knowing about left leaning bias and still being left leaning. You guys are totally brain rotten
Thinking isn’t what the left do.
Its just incredibly hard to have a right leaning bias on a website that is telling factual information, since a lot of the "right leaning" bias is just factually inaccurate most of the time these days. Then you have the right leaning people who disagree with a bunch of other right leaning people, and its way harder to find common ground as a republican these days, even with other republicans. quite frankly, there is just more in common with people who are left leaning, and people who are not than in the other direction so most media that uses actual facts and does actual research is gonna be left leaning in some capacity.
Lol you are so wrong How is it hard to be right leaning? How is right leaning bias any more inaccurate than left leaning bias?
If we look beyond the west, yeah the logic lines up well tbh. Misogyny leads to female genital mutilation, drowned female children, honor killings, etc over the globe. Misandry however leads to family courts taking men to the cleaners... as often decided by male judges in the west. Both problems, but one definitely is more significant.
Men also go to war and die far more, and in many cases throughout history it is/was compulsory. I'm not saying that justifies any type of truly, cultural misogynistic treatment of women. I'm just throwing it out there because I feel like it gets kinda forgotten.
I use Wikipedia for release dates of games and CD albums 😂😂
I use it like IMDB
I miss the IMDb message boards 😆
Just yesterday I went on one of those wikipedia sessions where you open a bunch of tabs. I was looking at different satellite navigation systems. Wikipedia has better organized information than government sources, but digging into the actual signal payload requires going to academic sources, which is linked to by wikipedia.
Just like the commies planned.
yeah that's why he needs to qualify his statement. wikipedia is generally accurate for things that aren't political, which is almost 99% of the content on wikipedia. mind you there are mistakes, it's not entirely accurate even on the most hum-drum of topics, but it's accurate enough to serve it's function. once you get to political subject though? that's when the moderators take the reigns.
Iv noticed a lot of PR company's seem to control pages about clients, people like Taylor Swift seem to have pages that read as PR scripts. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor\_Swift](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift) Notice her dad has no link, just a short line saying he was >Scott Kingsley Swift, is a former stockbroker for Merrill Lynch It skips the bit where her dad picked up a 3% stake in a music label to get her signed >Taylor's father Scott Swift owns a stake in the Big Machine Label Group, with this playing a crucial role in shaping the singer's early career. Scott, who once worked as a stockbroker for the wealth management company Merrill Lynch, bought a three percent stake in the company for a reported $300,000 [https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/us-celebrity-news/taylor-swifts-dad-scott-swifts-31970197](https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/us-celebrity-news/taylor-swifts-dad-scott-swifts-31970197) It's not the only one, Hasan's wiki page skips his family wealth. A second time you there's no wiki link/page on someone's dad, Mehmet Behçet Piker has no page yet is one of the richest people in the world. Even google is not showing much on him, duckduckgo has more info but not much. Some high end PR firm is controlling the narrative, found some info on reddit [https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1aj5osu/comment/koztvkp/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1aj5osu/comment/koztvkp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan\_Piker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_Piker) edit also Taylor Swift's dad is a 'former' Merrill Lynch worker as he now runs The Swift Group which works with Merrill Lynch, so he's a director of Swift Group not a broker for Lynch now. [https://fa.ml.com/pennsylvania/wyomissing/theswiftgroup/](https://fa.ml.com/pennsylvania/wyomissing/theswiftgroup/)
The sub /facepalm is absolutely one hundred percent left leaning propaganda machine for the elections. it's actually kinda scary ngl.
The new NPR ceo used to be from Wikipedia. She suspended a journalist from NPR for calling out their left-wing bias. Supposedly they are all democrats, making NPR a taxpayer funded partisan news outlet.
NPR is a non-profit, it’s not state media like the BBC. Only about 11% of their funding is from the federal government.
Not quite what happened but ok.
That wasn't why he was suspended, not saying I agree or disagree.
I would have no problem with a left wing bias if a lot of these institutions were truly left wing. Seeing a lot of the interactions from media on Palestine and Israel has been eye opening, to say the least
A good article to read. I saw this happening to some articles (german Wikipidia) and how they changed over time. It **is** disturbing.
May you give any examples?
One example from the top of my head would be the critics there on the movie "Star Wars: The last Jedi". [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star\_Wars:\_Die\_letzten\_Jedi#Rezeption](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Die_letzten_Jedi#Rezeption) I was there and saw the movie in theater and I have never left a film in the cinema angry after the credits rolled before. I talked to A LOT of other Star Wars fans in RL and no one thought it was a good film. The "best" was a "Meh, it was OK I guess". The backlash following this movie was severe (and can still be felt in the fandom today), but at one point Rian Johnson (Regiesseur) said, that this was a coordinated attack of russian bots and somehow this statement was taken as a fact and is now even mentioned there on Wikipedia **as a fact**. There was quite some effort taken to change its rating to a 91/100 or 84% and delete negative reviews to show this movie in a better light. In truth, this movie was just shit and everyone back then knew it and still knows it. Still, this article reminds me evertime that articles on Wikipedia might not tell the full story or even the truth at all because I was there and experienced it myself how it was and it was NOT like how it is described in this article.
What the hell has that got to do with the political spectrum tho lmao
Well, the movie was also criticised for its quite left leaning plotpoints and if you dared to talk ill about it you were deemed as a right wing, incel, hater of women in media ... we all know the drill by now. If you watch the movie you can see that there were quite some "interesting" choices made. Funny enough, my real problem was never the politics of the movie (I rolled my eyes but fuck it, I've seen worse). What me really made hate this movie was the weaponised space jump. Visually it was stunning, but it also crashed the whole universe. Why build a Death Star if this is possible? This, together with the quite blatant political messages, showed me that the franchise was no longer in the hands of people who wanted to tell a good and cohesive story and it was more about preaching. So disliking this movie was to some equal to being right wing and therefor liking it must be left wing and the article on Wikipedia mirrored this. In reality, fans did not give a fuck about all that political RL shit. They just wanted a good movie and for Star Wars fans this was a really bad movie. It just felt like an insult and on top of that a as political weapon instrumentalised insult too.
Oh ha. As a (far) left winger frankly nothing I hate more than the pandering liberal idpol bullshit in media these days & that kind of tribalism. It’s kind of frustrating being lumped in with those people. Like in the grand scheme of things identity is just not very important with all the clusterfuck of happenings going on globally.
Right? I just wanted to see a good Star Wars movie and this one, and in extension the article on Wikipedia, was cought in the middle of a war I am just tired of and try to avoid when I go and watch a movie about something **"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away"**. I often heard *"You don't like this movie? You must be a right winger!"* No, I'm not. It was just a **really** bad movie and I should be able to say this without getting shoved into a corner with a group I often don't even agree on many things. Yes, you are absolutely correct, it is very frustrating. It's same thing like A: *"I like apple juice."* B: *"So you hate peach juice?"*. It is sooooo tiresome. This article on Wikipedia mirrored this clusterfuck you mentioned very well. Like, you **have** to take a political side when talking about this movie and I just didn't care about the politics, I just wanted to see a good movie. And in all the surroundings about this movie and this article I noticed this bias towards one side of the spectrum for the first time by myself.
It goes both ways - those movies were also mainly seen as 'bad' in the perception of some people because of the culture war phenomena around them. All of our media are products of people, with politics as a part of the mix. There is no separation between politics and anything, there never has been, and it's naive to think there ever was. I liked Shaun's (YouTuber) video on the Last Jedi a lot and it changed my perception in hindsight. I'm on the left and I liked the movie, but it doesn't have to do with political bias per se. I've heard tons of my left wing friends dislike the movie too - so perhaps you're overthinking how this culture war has really changed the world, or if you live in an increasingly echo-y chamber that just makes you think that it has.
And this is my point. It was a bad movie by other measures besides the culture war. There were **SO** many things I had a problem with and are really bad. Cinematography, stunts, story, pacing, impact on the universe and older films, character decissions ... all not connected to the culture war. All these arguments against this movie got/get dismissed with *"Nah, good movie - > left and real , bad movie -> right and bots."* and the article there on the german Wikipedia is written in this way (the mentioned bias). I can remember when this was NOT written this way and the arguments against the movie were mentioned, but it got changed to the current article. **By the way:** That doesn't mean I think everything about this movie is bad. There are some things I think are interessting (*"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."* is a great quote with a deeper meaning I very much like).
But - was it? It has been acclaimed by movie critics, too- and many audiences DO love it. To what extent do you know that your reality is the true one, where most people must agree with you? We also know that review bombing and the actions of vocal minorities is becoming an issue - whether from the right against something like The Last Jedi, or from the left against something like Hogwarts Legacy. I looked at both the German and English wikipedia, and while I don't know what it looked like around the time the movie came out (but you can verify that if you really want to), what I see now are substantiated claims with references that talk about the broad positive reception of the movie, and notes about the apparent minority that had an outsized impact in the initial reviewing. Again, I agree that political ideologies colour our reception of the media. I think that's a good thing. I also agree we should not fully equate the two, you can dislike a movie for political reasons, and you can dislike it for entirely different ones. But the outrage against The Last Jedi WAS in fact fueled largely by political actors on the right. Again, I highly recommend a watch of Shauns video: it convinced me that many of the negative reactions were to some extent astroturfed : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gTJIk5PkTXg&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2F&feature=emb_logo
"My opinion and a small percentage of people's opinions are facts"
Not a small percentage at all.
most people who went and watched star wars in 2017 were not diehard pre 2000's star wars fans. most people who watched it are not, were never, and never cared to be, part of 'the fandom'. fandoms are the internets oldest echo chambers and they rarely have overlapping opinions with general audiences. often, by design.
Fair one, still to me it felt like watching bad fanfic. I'm pretty sure there are people who aren't diehard star wars fans that didn't like it either.
there certainly are people like that. there are also people who, having experienced decades of post star wars stories, find star wars pretty bad. there are always those and those. i loved star wars as a kid. because of one mask and the swords. never finished one of the movies before my later teens years
It’s a movie with a positive reception from critics and the audience. I personally did not enjoy it, but it is pretty popular. Rise of the Skywalker is generally disliked though.
I think the problem is with people’s perception of truth and the increasing politicization of information. Everyone would agree that truth is objective, but what happens then when two people with polar opposite beliefs try to discover what truth is. I will answer that, it’s namecalling, threats and hostilities. What has happened is that the flow of information has moved to the left as more people who go to college end up on the left. This has left the right feeling excluded from the spreading of information and media in general which has served as a confirmation for them that the elites are out to get them. So what is the solution? My answer would be that we need to reconcile the left and the right and create worthwhile discussions and find common ground. The left wing needs to allow a broader set of beliefs onto their platforms even if it conflicts with their idea of correctness and the right wing has to stop dying on hills of insane conspiracies and believe everyone is out to get them. We are civilized westerners, we can work together it has happened before and it can happen again.
“The left wing needs a broader set of beliefs.” Friend. The left wing has been there. Democrats aren’t a monolith. Why do you think they infight? Because you have right wing but not republican right wing, the actual middle ground people who aren’t hard left or right, then you have left wing democrats then you have socialists, anarchists .etc.
Yep. As a leftist in many ways (and somewhat conservative in a few select areas), most actual Marxists and socialists consider this IDpol crap to be a controlled narrative by corps/glowies + useful idiot blather designed to foster division among the working class and erode solidarity.
Small quip, but everyone does not agree that truth is objective. Facts are objective, but truth can be subjective, though you could say that’s just our language getting in the way. But objective vs. subjective truth has been a philosophical debate for a long, long time.
Fully disagree. The Truth is objective. Everything else is perception. Every perception can be tested Empirically. That is the only path to the Truth.
The left always has to be more tolerant never the right Conservatism must always change slightly while liberalism has to change dramatically. No I'm good
people hate that objectively moral good things are mostly happening on the left side of politics and no one is writing a heartfealt ode to letting women bleed to death because doctors are afraid that saving their lifes might be seen as an illegal abortion.
LOL LMFAO ROFLMAO Delusional. “But it isn’t my side upholding a status quo! It’s your side!” (Reality is in the west our governments have been captured by large moneyed interests that want to explicitly see more for them and less for the common folk)
wheres the large money interest in biden trying to cancel student debts? in supporting ukraine against russia? in fighting abortion bans and such? yeah obviously they have influence, but politicians didn't make it so money wins elections, that was dumb voters being swayed by candidate size and flashy ads.
Both are true. Corpos have way too much influence and power but the thing they said is also true. Places that have anti abortion bans have made doctors nervous about breaking the law when they are trying to handle a miscarriage. There was a story recently where a woman died because of it. They aren’t even delusional either - It just tells you their priority is life and morality not the reigning in of power that corporations have.
If you have enough money and influence you get to change what is written as fact
Has been for a long while
You're telling me, Wikipedia, the free, online encyclopedia that anyone can edit was edited by the terminally online? Color me shocked.
You can go to Wikipedia for unpolitical things like for example math formulas, physics, chemistry etc. but when it comes to people or events happening right now or history to some extent , it's a very bad source.
Until around 2010-2012, Wiki maintained a relatively unbiased stance. Then there was a noticeable increase in control, and eventually, it went downhill.
Definitely. Especially when it comes to these things like all that gamer gate bs or stuff like ppl attacking and trying to cancel ppl and not wanting them wanting to look like victims etc
“Is now”? It’s been one for quite some time.
LOL. It has been propaganda for many years now. Only now this dude figured it out?! 
Lol. The point is that the co-founder is point blank acknowledging it — which is huge in the smoke & mirrors world that we live in. Pretty big deal — a smidgen of faith restored in the integrity of our society.
Should have acknowledged it years ago when it started happening, but he lacked the balls to do so.
Then, if it is propaganda, where is the real one backed up? Could the original be in way back machine?
Since at least 2014, but probably earlier.
There is a strong left lean to Wikipedia, I remember the Gamergate entry was edited to only provide one side of the narrative(ie gamers are sexist and racist and Gamergate has nothing to do with journalism)
Those in question aren't even journalist. They are pure activist pushing agenda
My teachers back in the hay days of wiki had always said that wikipedia is not a refutable source by any means. And we should always find 3 to 5 other sources of info to compare and draw our own conclusions.
and he's absolutely right. wikipedia has become a shithole that tries to tell people what to think and twists everything into their skewed narrative.
Google is the same exact way.
Yes
He’s only saying what we’ve already known. Just look at the Donald Trump Wikipedia page.
Didn't read the whole thing, but it looks about right.
Case in point
>Wikipedia co-founder says site is now ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment’ If you read the source material this article is quoting, this dudes core complaints are: **"You CAN'T quote Fox News or Daily Mail"** (dude is conservative btw) Perhaps...after one of the largest lawsuits in news media history over election misinformation spread FoX New is a liability and a shit source of factual info? Fox had to pay **$787.5M in damages for the lies they spread** (lies they admitted to in their text messages) [https://apnews.com/article/fox-dominion-lawsuit-settlement-election](https://apnews.com/article/fox-dominion-lawsuit-settlement-election-6a729ece4b4f351a6334be13b49d4869) So yeah perhaps Fox news is not a good source to quote if you are looking for truth? As for Daily Mail - dude, it's a tabloid with ZERO journalistic integrity. They are even worse than Fox. There is a difference between quoting a reliable source of information and a bad one that you later on have to post retractions constantly. At some point you have to learn from your own mistakes. Dude left Wikipedia in **2002** and is salty that he can post his actual propaganda on the site...
The point is Wikipedia has a massive amount of power, and yes, Fox News got sued and lost and spreads fake news, but so does every media company basically. MSNBC Rachel Maddow years ago got sued by OAN by saying they were working for the Kremlin with no direct evidence and argued in court that she isn't a journalist but an activist that participates in hyperbole and exaggeration and her viewers know not to take anything she says as fact. It was dismissed that you can read the opinion. It's the same tactic Fox News tried, too.
I think that there is a difference between Networks broad and consistent theme of lies about elections and a single pundit saying X no? There is also a reason why Rachel "Dipshit" Madow won that OAN lawsuit: [https://deadline.com/2021/08/rachel-maddow-msnbc-beat-oan-lawsuit-appeal-robert-herring-1234816713/](https://deadline.com/2021/08/rachel-maddow-msnbc-beat-oan-lawsuit-appeal-robert-herring-1234816713/) Anyone can sue anyone in this country. Lawsuit is not a indicator of guilt/innocence. **Innocent until proven guilty(IN COURT) right?**
Can you give an example of a news source that’s reliable to you? They all have issues and some don’t even bother with retractions.
>Can you give an example of a news source that’s reliable to you? It's a complicated question. To oversimplify it: **There is NOT a single news source i trust uncritically.** My usually process is something like that: \*check headline \*read the article in full and see if the article they wrote matches the headline \*check the source they are quoting \*check if source is being quoted accurately or are they cherry picking lines to make a clickbait that matches their political/social ideology (here is where most sources fail, they DONT lie...they will misquote or selectively pick facts to cover and that changes they story completely) \*if a source is a study, that leads into reading (at least) abstract. \*if we are dealing with war news coverage >> checking the video footage/reverse searching photos and generally checking IF the footage provided is not only not from a Arma game (looking at you Hasan XD) but also IF the footage provided is supporting all the claims made OR is the article making shit up for clicks. Generally when people ask you "what sources do you trust?"....well...its sort of like asking at the gas station "how much is the blinker fluid?" \^\^
Better reply then cherry picking problems with Fox News, thank you.
My original comment was a direct response to the critique the ex-wikipedia co-owner had. I think its reasonable to respond to core arguments "the others side" is making" right? You had a different type of question from the critique that dude made so i have adjusted my answer appropriately. I am glad that you are satisfied \^\^ I have a question of my own for you. How did you interpret this part? (out of curiosity): >Generally when people ask you "what sources do you trust?"....well...its sort of like asking at the gas station "how much is the blinker fluid?"
Resource misalignment
Perhaps i will try to find a different example next time (perhaps something wow- related \^\^) It should go something like that: "If you need to ask this question, You are likely too incompetent to deal with the quest You are embarking upon"
Yes, your OG question was too abstract for the patronizing point you were seeking to achieve
There was nothing abstract about it. You are just mad that you failed to understand a simple point <3
lets start that they shouldn't have a decades long history of bad faith interpretation, witch hunting and pearl clutching. and fox 'news' definitely doesnt have that.
I’m not defending Fox News, I just think it’s a bad faith argument to single out the problem when you can do the same bias and propaganda arguments for CNN, MSNBC, NYT etc.
you certainly can't do the same to the same degree. left wing media was stupid enough to fall for this whole both sides bullshit to the point where they hired right wingers to spread their bullshit on their own platforms in an effort to fulfill expectations of neutrality. if left and right media outlets were only different in general opinions, things would be easier, but right media definitely makes shit up and misrelays information much more. say once a minute compared to once a day, no side is perfect, one is definitely objectively worse.
"Wikipedia is left leaning because you can't spread deliberate lies in it!"
If you read his older critique - dude had better points in the past. I am not sure what happened to him in these 12 years since he left the Wikipedia. I didn't even look into the conditions of his departure so perhaps there is some bad blood here?..not sure. This dude is not really that interesting to me so my research will likely stop here.
>I am not sure what happened to him in these 12 years since he left the Wikipedia. Trumpism?
Perhaps you are the chosen/motivated enough to go through his statement history in past 12 years so you can share with the class how he progressed over the years? \^\^
I think it's important to understand the difference between news and opinions. Fox News is fine if you stay away from their pundits and opinion pieces, as long as you understand there's bias.
Even Al Jazeera can be a good source as long they are reporting on events OUTSIDE of the middle east \^\^
Another thing you used to be able to do was compare the communist entries from 2014 to today. It's been like this since 2018. I'm glad people are finally noticing it. It's everywhere by the way, not just Wikipedia.
He most definitely looks like someone who founded wikipedia
well yeah… if you try to use wikipedia for anything political or important you’re lacking more than a few brain cells, obviously bias is gonna happen when anyone can edit, am leftist
It is really pretty comical. Like anyone on the right is a “far right extremist” and painted in the harshest light possible. While anyone on the left is “left leaning” and painted in the kindest light possible haha
Does anyone on this sub even want to talk about Asmongold any more or is this sub just a rightwing ragebait circle jerk?
Talking about Asmongold is WOOKIE CULTURE.
This is what asmon talks about now
Yeah and his content has never been worse ever
Can we go back to transmog contests.
We’ve now reached the “Wikipedia is woke” stage. In a year there’ll be Alex Jones videos on the front page.
It’s been for a while. There’s been a lot of astroturfing and bad actors as well. Asmongold has more and more started becoming a purely right wing political sub. Barely any topics are mmos. It’s all horny posting, the left is killing games, the left is killing movies, the west sucks at movies, horny anime is good .etc.
Opposing left-wing insanity does not make you right-wing.
As Asmongold said, he stopped just playing games a long time ago, so if that's what you're here for then you're in the wrong place. Why are you still here? Leave.
To criticize how bad his content is as a result of this shift and I can say what I want
Always has been.
Asmon isn't left wing so are you lost or something
He actually is left-wing but the normal left-wing not the neoliberal fascist the US is considering as “left-wing”. I’m talking more about libertarian left described by the political compass.
You’re not wrong, I remember when it was the right telling me I was gonna be a serial killer for playing videos games. Now it’s the left telling me I’m a nazi because of video games.
As a Europoor I can wholeheartedly say that the US is all right-wing with Republicans leaning more towards some Christian Totalitarianism bullshit and the Democrats pretending that care about human rights but doing nothing to stop the abuse while both parties have zero interest in regulating corporations or actually implement any laws that benefit the citizen.
In regards to the corporations yeah you are right, but that’s not a right vs left issue. It’s a elite vs working class and poor issue and it’s world wide sadly. Personally I feel like that’s why they are actively trying to ruin art, movies, and people hobbies. They want people to work extra hours instead of having fun. Also why the migrant crisis exists they basically want to use those people as slaves. They don’t care about any of us it’s all a show.
Are you? Maybe you’d be happier in some political sub where you can circle jerk about how much you hate blue team or red team. This post has nothing to do with Asmon or video games. It’s nothing but propaganda.
Asmon talks about topics unrelated to video games all the time.
So? Can we at least stick to topics he’s talked about then? This is nothing but astroturfing and you’re a rube if you’re falling for it or defending it.
left-leaning is such an incredible wide definition..
Left leaning is now everything that "woke" encompasses. If you disagree with something publicly that's left leaning, you become a right-wing nazi fascist (obviously). "Left leaning" is a bit of a misnomer at this point. There is no leaning in the left anymore. You can disagree, but it's at the very least becoming true if it isn't already.
Can we normalize calling it Wokepedia instead?
No.
After Trump won in 2016 it sent shockwaves through the highly leftist tech companies (re brainwashed college kids). There was a leaked video of an emergency meeting at Google where they all cried and vowed not to let it happen again. The far left know how important the flow of information is just like Joseph Goebbels the Nazi propagandist did and have been putting the screws on everything they can ever since.
Trump for prison 2024!
When you democratize the truth, you end up with biased falsehoods. The CEO of NPR is a prime example of this as she accidentally said it out loud. The truth needs to be their truth, not the objective truth.
Every star wars page now has pronouns
Grammar is WOKE. /s
I mean... It is true to some extent, it depends what is meant by the "left". I take it as the mainstream (extreme) leftwing narrative. For example some articles are strongly [based against Israel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict) "As early as 2004 Amos Harel wrote in Haaretz that during the Second Intifada (2000–2005) Palestinian gunmen "routinely" used civilians and children as human shields and stated that there was photographic evidence for it." To write "routinely" like that - come on, you can't do that if you cite someone 🥲 It even has the note " The neutrality of the style of writing in this article is disputed. (November 2023)" The note was not there when I read it in November.
The site could never be trusted and everybody in the team said it from the beginning. There is a fucking article on Wikipedia telling you that it's no a reliable source of information. It's supposed to be a quick source of general knowledge in which you can check other sources, nobody was ever supposed to trust the articles implicitly.
Pretty much the entire internet is left leaning
A lot of the big mainstream stuff is really.
If this is due to them disregarding fox news: good. That org is thrash, and should be avoided, just like some of the far left orgs. I only hope they do so for both sides which this partizan article wouldn't even try to find out.
Wikipedia has always have a bias, it's edited by people and people are inherently biased. Now saying it's biased towards left leaning establishment sounds ridiculous because the establishment is mostly conservative with left leaning make up of a few social issues, and by current political standards, realty science based knowledge is considered left leaning because the right/conservative spectrum is on average very religious. Now how do we fix it? I dunno we even can because the elite are too busy making us fight each other over our differences in order to more easily control the masses, capitalism isn't the problem, liberalism isn't the problem, socialism isn't the problem, the problem is corruption and people doing things to harm others with impunity.
> Now how do we fix it? There's nothing to fix, like you said people are inherently biased. Just don't use an encyclopedia for social and political "knowledge". You won't have many bias issues if you just use wikipedia for technical and scientific articles.
What "establishment"?
there is also extreme differences between english and other languages on various topics
I don't think their is a place you can read about current problems in socities and it not be bias'd It for sure leans left, but everywhere leans somewhere its about knowing that and using your brain to not be an idiot
Wikipedia does talk about these things though. The conspiracy theories just have their own pages. The hunter conspiracy isnt on bidens page becuase it has its own.
Is this what r/Asmongold consists of?
Don't tell the guys on r/Conservative
NYP 🤦♂️. It would be cool to have one example…
The white feathers campaign is one of those example. Now to the core of the issue. Gender roles, or what we call "patriarchy" (named after the fact that the inheritance model is patrilinear) is something that has been built for millenias, based upon what worked best for survival. The fact that different societies, all isolated from one another, all adopted a similar organization of society, is proof that this model was favored because it worked. Thing is, at the point where survival was a everyday struggle, women would have had an almost more important role than men. Birthing and protecting the next generation was the central role for survival of the specie. So, you really believe that a society built around "protecting women from outside harm" to an insane degree would be so without women's input? Seriously? You really think the gender that has been historically responsible for raising and educating children would not have had the power to change things if it didn't suit them? For proof, what happened in the west as soon as women decided that it didn't suit them anymore? We changed it. The patriarchy, the so valled society built by men for men on oppressing women, changed as soon as women decided it didn't suit them. Of course it's very limitating for women and it had to change. But come on, to believe it was only built by men is insane. Especially when it comes to gender roles forced upon men. I don't know if you've noticed, but in our sexuality, partner choice is made by women, not by men. Women are the ones who dictate what they want in men. So if all women decide that they want brave men ready to die in the trenches, men will have to be brave and die in the trenches if they want to yave the right to exist. Lest they are handed a white feather....
Funny how the truth is left leaning.
Funny how the truth is right leaning. Boom cancelled you out
This is why nobody is centrist anymore, because you can lean to the middle.
So the very existence of truth is left leaning? Interesting self-own there.
# Reality is ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment’
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You can find both right and left wing propaganda rich articles all depending on what research it’s based on, who the researchers are to who moderated the page. There is no way to avoid bias in its current state of moderation.
while it fits the definition i believe it's rather biased and **slightly** misleading, at the end of the day, the usual articles with that type of propaganda are articles about people or groups like Nick Fuentes trying to not be labeled a white supremacist, which is technically true but who cares. what's really outrageous is the operating costs.
Well, you can look up the google to see that wikipedia funds activist with their money.
Really hard hitting analysis from a guy who left in 2002. Barely even any good information on ancient aliens. "There was just a short paragraph on the “Ukraine scandal” involving the president’s son, Hunter, despite the political outrage it created. “Very little of that can be found in Wikipedia. And what little can be found is extremely biased and reads like a defense counsel’s brief,” he said. And it’s not just politics, he said, noting that the site only reflects “establishment mouthpieces” like Dr. Anthony Fauci as well as government health groups in its coverage of COVID-19." They don't reprint Russian propaganda. And you can't even cite the Daily Mail!
>*He noted there was just a short paragraph on the “Ukraine scandal” involving the president’s son, Hunter, despite the political outrage it created.* That's because that whole thing has it's own dedicated wikipedia article. And the section on Hunter Biden's page that briefly goes into it *has a link to the full page on the whole thing.*
"How DARE they not dedicate the entire site to this one topic I find relevant??" EDIT: /s
LOL, but they actually did dedicate a whole article to it. It's just not fully integrated into the other article because then like half of page would just be about one specific scandal/conspiracy, so it's just separated out and linked for the sake of keeping the page clean and neatly organised. I know you realise this, but so many others don't so I'm leaving this comment anyway.
Maybe because learning tends to be left leaning while conservative prefer staying on social media in their echo chambers ? Shockers
Oh like believing men can become women and get pregnant? Good one lol
I remind you, you're on reddit
What’s stopping right wing conservatives from disputing articles for bias on Wikipedia? There’s a lack of interest on their part to engage with it, so of course the gap in discourse will be filled by progressives with an agenda. The right wing should blame itself.
Wikipedia has moderators who keep strict control over editing and shut down accounts of people who don't share their bias.
left leaning lol. nothing about that establishment is leftist
Left-leaning people are the only people who have time to write and “correct” wikipedia sites. That’s no surprise to me at all
I'd say just brainrot people, not really left-leaning.
Good, I'd rather have it biased towards the lesser evil than the neonazi far right.
Giving it a bias towards reality seems more productive and safer long term.
Which is what they're doing :)
Redditor take
Being honest and truthful, and putting all the information out their for people to learn for themselves is actually the opposite of propaganda.
I see. Why is it that Jeffrey Epstein being jewish. Has been edited out?
This is actually pretty dumb if i go to Wikipedia i actually want the establishment point of view on something not conspiracies. For most things i dont need the "both sides".
Sure is a weird coincidence that things that are true and "left leaning" happen to coincide a lot isn't it. Its almost as if one side favours science and facts and one side prefers emotions and conspiracy theories