We’re investigating private companies for bias now? Are Truth Social and Fox News next??
Reality has a known liberal bias.
They’d investigate reality, but that’d be science, which they are opposed to.
Even if it was biased: so fucking what? Freedom of speech means they can do jack shit about that anyway.
Anything that does not fall in line with our propaganda machine is biased or lying!!
No they aren’t. House republicans can’t read. They will just say it’s biased and try to force it further right from wherever it currently is without checking.
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.
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.
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!
It’s true that it is not generally accepted for writing a paper or essay, but that does not mean that the information is completely unreliable. While I’m sure that Wikipedia is not perfect with regards to truth, it is more accessible, democratized and readable than many primary sources or peer reviewed articles. Those properties have a lot of value by themselves. Would you not agree?
I mean it is comparative to someone saying everything on lemmy is correct because people believe it true. Wiki is a open source so anyone can add to it. Anyone with. Strong opinion or faulty information. Basically just a collection of open source info without regulations.
But the sources are listed below on Wikipedia, not in lemmy.
True Lemmy will not let you post anything from certain news sources. Wiki people can cite anything so Lemmy is more limiting to narrow its users information.
Nothing stopped someone writing a bogus paper claiming an MMR vaccine causes autism. It being a paper likely gave it undue credit to people who were convinced by it, not that they read it…
Right and we also use lemmy, but we still weigh and judge what we read here or at least we should. And we should do the same for Wikipedia, even though I would argue that Wikipedia has higher epistemic standards than Lemmy. The point being, the openness of these platforms is a quality on its own. Wikipedia isn’t perfect, but it is far from terrible.
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.
Removed by mod
“Stop accurately documenting my actual behavior!” - House Repugnicans
It’s funny, because they clearly have the idea in their head that Wikipedia is a single organization capable of an ideological bias. When if you take a single look at some talk pages, it would become clear very quickly that Wikipedia is built on people vociferously disagreeing and bringing sources to make the information presented ever more credible and unbiased.
Wikipedia is built on people vociferously disagreeing and bringing sources to make the information presented ever more credible and unbiased.
Yeah, that’s why they are upset with it.
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.
Yeah, but Lincoln is dead.
Must have been a glorious three minutes.
You can? I certainly cannot.
Pre-Reagan
I’d have to say pre-Nixon
Back in they day when being a Republican meant more than obstructionism and authoritarianism.
Calling out Republicans for lies and antidemocratic behavior is not “bias”.
I mean, we all know that reality has a well known liberal bias…
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.
Republicans call anything that does not align with their billionaire funded think tanks and knockoff media sources fake or lying. I mean they literally replaced AP with some knockoff bullshit media source for the White House. You think this is about verifiable sources?
Removed by mod
They don’t accept verifiable sources. A hundred peer reviewed papers don’t weigh up against a single dissenting voice if that one voice agrees with their views.
How often?
