Wikipedia is a completely biased source of news information

[Loki]

Be very careful if you ever use Wikipedia to get information about something important - - and in particular about politics, you will not be getting reliable information there, don't use it!

See what the co-founder of Wikipedia has to say about it :

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_mo...r_3887650.html

Wikipedia Co-founder Warns: ‘Wikipedia Is More One-Sided Than Ever’

Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia, warned that the online encyclopedia is “more one-sided than ever” in light of the website’s entries for Black Lives Matter, the 2020 election, former President Donald Trump’s two impeachments, and other contentious topics.

Sanger, in particular, took issue with how some Wikipedia entries are sourced.

“In short, and with few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources—and sources friendly to globalist progressivism—are permitted,” he wrote in an article on his website.

Several centrist news outlets like The Daily Telegraph, The Wall Street Journal, and The Weekly Standard are sometimes allowed to be sourced, he said, but Wikipedia editors are “careful never to leave the current Overton Window of progressive thought.”

Unlike Facebook Inc. and Twitter, which take more top-down approaches to content moderation, Wikipedia, which turned 20 years old earlier this year, largely relies on unpaid volunteers to handle issues around users’ behavior, editing entries, and other aspects of the site’s management.

Wikipedia has 230,000 volunteer editors who work on crowdsourced articles and more than 3,500 “administrators” who can take actions like blocking accounts or restricting edits on certain pages, according to a Reuters article.

Further, Sanger suggested, Wikipedia’s editors have “systematically purged conservative mainstream media sources” because its editors “do not want what they dismiss as ‘misinformation,’ ‘conspiracy theories,’ etc., to get any hearing. In saying so, they (and similarly biased institutions) are plainly claiming exclusive control over what is thinkable. They want to set the boundaries of the debate, and they want to tell you how to think about it.”

Sanger noted that Wikipedia has banned Fox News’ political reporting, the New York Post, and the Daily Mail from being used as sources.

According to a Wikipedia page on the sources that can be used, other conservative websites like Breitbart, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, The Gateway Pundit, and Newsmax are also banned.

“Many mainstream sources of conservative, libertarian, or contrarian opinion are banned from Wikipedia as well, including Quillette, The Federalist, and the Daily Caller,” he added. “Those might be contrarian or conservative, but they are hardly ‘radical’; they are still mainstream. So, how on earth can such viewpoints ever be given an airing on Wikipedia? Answer: often, they cannot, not if there are no ‘reliable sources’ available to report about them.”

“It is not too far to say that Wikipedia, like many other deeply biased institutions of our brave new digital world, has made itself into a kind of thought police that has de facto shackled conservative viewpoints with which they disagree,” Sanger wrote in a conclusion on his website. “Democracy cannot thrive under such conditions: I maintain that Wikipedia has become an opponent of vigorous democracy.”

But democracy, he argued, “requires that voters be given the full range of views on controversial issues, so that they can make up their minds for themselves.”

“If society’s main information sources march in ideological lockstep, they make a mockery of democracy. Then the wealthy and powerful need only gain control of the few approved organs of acceptable thought; then they will be able to manipulate and ultimately control all-important political dialogue,” Sanger concluded.

Sanger and another co-founder Jimmy Wales created Wikipedia—of which Sanger gave its name—in 2001. Sanger left the project during the next year and he has, for years, criticized the website.

Original source from Larry Sanger's website:

https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wiki...ded-than-ever/

[Sheva23]

Ofcourse it biased when random people can edit those pages.

[Lemminkäinen]

“It is not too far to say that Wikipedia, like many other deeply biased institutions of our brave new digital world".

This. I don't know if it is possible to deceive all people, but all sometimes and some all the time.

[Diego Garcia]

Wikipedia has always been biased, at least in the paragraphs Politics and History.

That's clearly noticeable by taking a look to any controversial article bibliography.

Nihil novum sub sole.

[Loki]

Ofcourse it biased when random people can edit those pages.

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. They have selected administrators who constantly police articles, and remove and edit unwanted bits. And, if there are pesky editors who don't want to toe the line, they just lock it.

Don't be ignorant.

[Loki]

Wikipedia has always been biased, at least in the paragraphs Politics and History.

That's clearly noticeable by taking a look to any controversial article bibliography.

Nihil novum sub sole.

Please read the article. Wikipedia is not randomly biased, it is controlled and moderated towards one political narrative /ideology. At least as far as the articles of a political nature is concerned. It wasn't always like this, it used to be more even-handed and fair.

[ixulescu]

All articles on Wikipedia that touch political or historical topics (which seems to be pretty much everything today) are infested with Marxist critical theory talking points.

I used to donate to Wikipedia every year. I stopped about 4 years ago when I realized that admins tolerate only one viewpoint. Fuck them.

[Faklon]

Dostoevsky (in Demons) saw semi-education as the worst sickness, causing complete chaos.

With wikipedia, every pleb can have an unfiltered opinion. Armed to spread propaganda.

Quora is even worse btw, full of pseudo-intellectual troglodytes.

[Red Pill]

Wikipedia is quite biased when it comes to modern political issues, or historical issues that concern the latter, like the causes of the American Civil War. I even wrote them about their article on "Cultural Marxist Conspiracy Theory". I pointed out that calling it a "conspiracy theory" is a matter of interpretation (notice that not even their article on Flat Earth Theory is called a "conspiracy theory"). They rejected a source written by a law expert because it was "not academic enough", while they use articles written by journalists from liberal newspapers (against their own declared policy to use only academic and scientific sources). Not to mention that political and social "sciences" aren't real sciences in epistemological sense. They totally ignored my arguments and replied (quite kindly I must say) that Wikipedia is not the place to discuss personal opinions... That said, Wiki is still quite useful for technical or other, non-political topics. For instance I use it often to find information on military history.

[JamesBond007]

So is google and facebook et. al. Google censors information. Young retarded millenials think this is 'good' perhaps and think google can be an arbiter of truth. However, millenials are retards who can't think critically and read syntopically.

Hello retarded millenials : you can't just google the answer to everything for the ultimate truth on the subject. Then again millenials are brainwashed by shit like cultural marxism and postmodernism where there is not supposed to be any "objective truth". The truth does exist and in the very least pure mathematics is proof of that. Then again many millenial retards are not STEM graduates but liberal arts majors so they don't understand this and it also makes them subject to bullshit like CRT theory. They like Darwinism because they think it shows religion to be false but don't understand that Darwinism eviscerates CRT theory.

There are five basic ways to sort truth from falsehood:


*Check the reliability of the authors you read: A theologian is a less- reliable source of information than a scientist.

*Compare different sources of information on the same topic (books, magazines, webpages, etc), and note the areas of disagreement or omissions. Omissions often indicate bias, while points of disagreement should be investigated to see, if possible, who is really telling the truth. Sources with obvious bias need to be studied, since these will usually have the most telling criticisms of the other side.

*Observe who is willing to debate, and who is not: The former are most likely to be telling the truth, while the latter are probably trying to keep their lies from being exposed.

*Observe whether the arguments are clear or obscure: the latter are a good indication of muddled thinking, and a likely marker of error.

*If you yourself have a bias, be sure to study the accounts of those biased against your view: Your enemies will tell you things your friends would never think of -- or never dare to mention if they did.