We’re investigating private companies for bias now? Are Truth Social and Fox News next??
Reality has a known liberal bias.
“Stop accurately documenting my actual behavior!” - House Repugnicans
Calling out Republicans for lies and antidemocratic behavior is not “bias”.
I know a lot of private companies with bias… WTF
They are just trying to annoy people and micromanage any left leaning or non partisan organization so they give up and just submit to the nazi’s.
Don’t do it, nothing good comes from giving the nazi’s what they want.
This is slop. Not necessarily AI generated, but definitely dumbass-generated.
Literally not one ounce of effort. No digging into vague studies Republicans are talking about. No overview of Wikipedia’s current policy. No questions posed to someone who knows about Wikipedia and/or government attempts to control the narrative.
It’s not even a good thing that the article only tells you the core facts. Too much goes unsaid. No context might as well be a hallucination from an AI for how much it bridges the gap between what you think and what reality contains.
I mean, we all know that reality has a well known liberal bias…
I remember a time when telling the truth wasn’t considered bias by the Republican party. It was the same time when, “conservative speech” didn’t mean lies, misinformation, and hate speech.
Must have been a glorious three minutes.
These assholes are a drain on society.
The answer to any bias in Wikipedia is to cite more verifiable sources, use better sound reasoning and update when newer evidence is found.
The answer is probably not the wishful thinking of one of USA’s unrepresentative main parties. To learn about public misrepresentation in government check out a page from Wikipedia.
To play devil’s advocate, an issue arises when there AREN’T more verifiable sources. If someone makes an outlandish claim like “Billy Joel used to wash his ass with crisco” and cites a dubious interview, it’s hard to find a source that definitively states Billy Joel DIDN’T wash his ass with crisco. Even worse, is if there was an actual, verified instance of one time where Billy Joel washed his ass with crisco. That may have been the only time he ever did it, and it may have been done as a joke or something like that, but now we have an interview saying he did it regularly, and an example of when he did. Now it’s a lot harder to disprove.
I feel gross defending Republican talking points, now I need to go take a shower. Maybe wash my ass with crisco.
That sounds like a generic issue one should expect. I wouldn’t consider this a specific party’s talking point until they suggest a solution that isn’t just better reasoning, better logic, better evidence.
There’s no problem in citing in that an interview cited fact X. Then if the issue is discussed, some other reputable news sources might say it’s likely not true and you can source them too.
When you present the facts as they are instead of trying to portray them as absolute truths, you’re doing the right work for Wikipedia.
Even scientific facts aren’t “the truth”, but our current understanding of things. Wikipedia isn’t about what’s the ultimate truth, it’s about documenting and organizing information so that people can get a grasp on subjects.
What law does that break?
Edit: Hey downvoter. If you aren’t stalking why don’t you include a comment on how you think having a bias is in anyway illegal.
Do as I say, not as I do!
Wikipedia is not accepted by colleges as a reliable source to cite. When you are writing a paper/essay. That should tell you that it isn’t a reliable source for information.
That’s ridiculous. It’s not allowed because it’s not a primary source of information. It’s a great jumping off point for knowledge and if you need to cite something you can just look through its sources at the bottom of each page.
I don’t make the rules for NY colleges.
Their point is that you don’t understand why you can’t cite any encyclopedia, not just Wikipedia.
It has nothing to do with the reliability, you just need to cite their source (the primary source) instead of citing the middle man.
You totally misunderstood the comment.
Bait used to be believable
deleted by creator
Yep, graduated!
I’m not writing a paper or essay… so my standards are different.
Conversely I’ve tried following a paper to implement an algorithm and suddenly found it used math terms that I couldn’t find an explanation for (and unlike the rest of the paper it didn’t elaborate shit).
I’m not writing a paper or essay… so my standards are different.
It actually shouldn’t matter in this case. Wikipedia isn’t a “source” of anything, it simply states facts and backs them with sources (though not always, many articles will have a “missing source” for many paragraphs). It’s also public, so anyone can add things without it being peer reviewed.
So if you actually care about whether some information is correct, you should check what is the source. And if something is wrong you can do your part and change the text to be more neutral or better phrased. Edits that improve pages are almost always gonna stick.
In the end it’s all ant’s work to update/fix the huge number of badly written stuff in there.
