Wikipedia's liberal bias



  • Continuing the discussion from wherever the fuck; look, at some point @antiquarian alleged that wikipedia is in controlled by social justice warriors:

    There's no denying that wikipedia is left of centre on a lot of issues, that's something that I always liked about it, knowing that if I read up on something there, I was less likely than with print media to find out that what I'd learned was the outdated, parochial view of things. But I've never seen any evidence that it was anything more than very moderately liberal, in fact, more often than not you'll see leftist complaining that it's not liberal enough. They do try very hard to maintain a neutral point of view, so if you could show that any article had an sjw bias, your revision would stand a very good chance of sticking.

    What I'm saying is: If you feel that wiki doesn't represent your point of view, I can accept that, and if you prefer to get your information out of books, go for it. But the claim I am making is that rather than wikipedia being too biased for you, it is you that are too biased for wikipedia.

    Anyway, that's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.



  • Facts have a well-known liberal bias.



  • Only in the US. They seem to have one of their political parties chock full of crazies..



  • Is that a fact?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @swayde said:

    Only in the US.

    There's plenty of crazies in political parties all over the world. Usually parties try to lean on the loons to keep a low profile because they want to get elected and then reelected. The US is one of the countries that gives the impression at least of having a problem at the moment, in that the crazies have got more of the reins of power in one of the parties than usual, and it suits some of the people in the media to portray the situation as normal.

    I'm utterly not saying that others don't have their own wingnuts. They do. They just usually keep most of them out of the way of actual power and let them yap off in their own little worlds. Occasionally we find their tumblrs and have a laugh. :smile:



  • The USA has three parties:

    • The serious party
    • The silly party
    • The very silly party

  • sockdevs

    And over here in the UK, we have the Monster Raving Loony Party.



  • @Buddy said:

    What I'm saying is: If you feel that wiki doesn't represent your point of view, I can accept that, and if you prefer to get your information out of books, go for it. But the claim I am making is that rather than wikipedia being too biased for you, it is you that are too biased for wikipedia.
    The fact this entire paragraph exists is the problem. There shouldn't be any bias. There shouldn't be any point of view. There should just be facts.

    You even contradict yourself with your first paragraph.

    @Buddy said:

    There's no denying that wikipedia is left of centre on a lot of issues, that's something that I always liked about it
    You have found that wikipedia has a left of centre bias and you actually like the fact that the full facts aren't on display.

    There is a reason why citing wikipedia will get you laughed at in most academicand research circles.



  • @swayde said:

    They seem to have one of their political parties chock full of crazies..

    And the other one is the Democrats.

    @DogsB said:

    There is a reason why citing wikipedia will get you laughed at in most academicand research circles.

    Yep, but it's nothing to do with bias, although it is to do with the Wikipedophileian" attitude.



  • Depends on the subject matter and if there's an ideological cabal pushing their agenda related to a topic. The first (and only) time I've seen this bias was during the initial Zoe Quinn and gamergate phases. Haven't been there since, so I don't know how things stand now. And frankly, I don't care.



  • @DogsB said:

    There shouldn't be any bias. There shouldn't be any point of view. There should just be facts

    Don't forget unicorns. There should totally be unicorns. But the existence of bias is fact, so lets not dance around it.

    @DogsB said:

    You have found that wikipedia has a left of centre bias and you actually like

    Sure, because I'm liberal. I'm not a perfect liberal, but I'm liberal enough that it's easier to just describe myself that way, rather than trying to pretend that I've got some unique, never-before-seen point of view, or that I'm the one person in the world that's normal, and it's everyone else that's biased.
    @DogsB said:
    like the fact that the full facts aren't on display

    Ok, there are two lies in here. Firstly you're saying that there's a causal relationship between bias at wikipedia and the omission of facts, which is unfounded; sure they might put a bit of spin on certain things, but there's no evidence that they've been removing content that doesnt fit their world view. Secondly, you're saying that I like the omission of facts, even after I specifically stated that what I liked was not finding out about missing information quite so often. I fucking loved being at college, and having access to just about any publication that I cared to search for, but now I have to make do with wikipedia, and whatever meagre pdfs the authors have seen fit to make available to the unwashed masses.
    @DogsB said:
    There is a reason why citing wikipedia will get you laughed at in most academicand research circles

    Because if your institution doesn't get you access to all the relevant journals, you might as well not bother.



  • @Arantor said:

    Monster Raving Loony Party

    4. The speaker in the House of Commons will be replaced by the latest audio equipment

    8. Immigration and Population: I propose that we cap the population of this country. We have too many people for such a small country, so we will Cap the number of people residing here at present rates (approximately 63 million, give or take 10 mill ) on the basis of one out, one in (excluding Births).

    Regarding Immigration… Any Person who can prove that they or their descendants emigrated to the U.K before 55 A.D can stay. All the others will be repatriated to their original country. (Well we have to draw the line somewhere)



  • @Buddy said:

    Don't forget unicorns. There should totally be unicorns. But the existence of bias is fact, so lets not dance around it.
    Yes it exists but you can still present facts without putting your own spin on it.

    @Buddy said:

    Sure, because I'm liberal. I'm not a perfect liberal, but I'm liberal enough that it's easier to just describe myself that way, rather than trying to pretend that I've got some unique, never-before-seen point of view, or that I'm the one person in the world that's normal, and it's everyone else that's biased.
    So you would rather exist in an echo chamber than read actual facts without any bias? You know. that thing that an actual encyclopedia shoudl do. Read the facts than form your own opinion rathar then read from a poisoned chalice.

    @Buddy said:

    Because if your institution doesn't get you access to all the relevant journals, you might as well not bother.
    Than your insitution is shit and probably produces shit if all you have to use is wikipedia.

    @Buddy said:

    Ok, there are two lies in here. Firstly you're saying that there's a causal relationship between bias at wikipedia and the omission of facts, which is unfounded; sure they might put a bit of spin on certain things, but there's no evidence that they've been removing content that doesnt fit their world view.
    True. However facts with a spin aren't facts. That's an opinion peice. Which have no place in an encyclopedia.

    @Buddy said:

    Secondly, you're saying that I like the omission of facts, even after I specifically stated that what I liked was not finding out about missing information quite so often.
    The problem here is that you actually don't know if something is missing. For example the vox day articule paints vox as perpertatuing a harrassment campaign against John Scalzi however there is no mention on the John Scalzi page about him overinflating his view counts as proven by Vox Day.



  • @DogsB said:

    you can still present facts without putting your own spin on it.

    I'll believe that when I see it.

    @DogsB said:

    facts with a spin aren't facts

    That's absurd. Facts are facts, regardless of the fluff that surrounds them. It's not that hard to separate truth from spin, especially when you are aware that it it is happening. It's certainly not worth it to write off as useful a source of information as wikipedia just because it was written by humans.



  • Reality has a liberal bias to the american pov

    Around here we call their political parties the very right and the extreme right.



  • @Buddy said:

    especially when you are aware that it it is happening
    There in lies the problem. You come to an information source because you don't know something. I can weed out the facts when I know a little about the subject but in issues I know little about it becomes increasingly difficult to tell fact, from general concensoius or author's personal opinion.

    @Buddy said:

    I'll believe that when I see it.
    I'm not saying that any thing will be 100% without bias. Afterall people usually set out to make a point and find evidence to support it. However this is an encyclopedia. They can at least try to edit out thier personal nonsense. It's also why it needs editors to proof read and weed out this nonsense.



  • At least when a source doesnt claim to be unbiased we know what may be missing.

    There isnt really such a thing as an unbiased source, even unconsciously your bias will bias your stuff.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @fbmac said:

    At least when a source doesnt claim to be unbiased we know what may be missing.

    Not always. There can be multiple layers of bias.

    An encyclopædia is a place to get a summary of the topic, and a place to use at the start of exploring about a subject. It's never the last word on anything, and never complete on the subject, and shouldn't ever try to be either. However, now that we have hypertext and no meaningful limitations on the length of articles, the sources can be cited so that people can go and see for themselves (or at least see which papers they'll have to purchase to do that; the world is imperfect). Or at least they can for the best articles: requiring all articles to be instantaneously perfect would seem to me to be ridiculously unreasonable. People should stop bitching about the problems and instead come up with evidence-based fixes. (In some cases, it's copy-editing that's needed. Edits that do that sort of stuff tend to not get reverted.)

    (My problems with wikipedia have been mostly with the quality of articles in the area of mathematics, which too often have just stated what the formulæ were, and not how they were developed or what the consequences and applications were. But a quick sampling indicates that the mathematical community on WP know about the issue and that the articles are gradually improving. Which is nice, as it makes the articles more soundly embedded in the overall web of knowledge.)

    I suspect that most of the people claiming horrible bias are actually complaining that it's their biases and unfounded crackpottery that aren't being supported. Excuse me while I show no pity towards them at all.



  • @DogsB said:

    There shouldn't be any bias. There shouldn't be any point of view.

    That's a very biased point of view.



  • @Buddy said:

    It's not that hard to separate truth from spin

    Conservatives find it impossible. That's why (a) they're conservatives and (b) they believe liberals who say they can do that are (b)(i) lying and (b)(ii) biased.



  • @dkf said:

    I suspect that most of the people claiming horrible bias are actually complaining that it's their biases and unfounded crackpottery that aren't being supported.

    Well of course those are not being supported! The goddamn liberal conspiracy has been actively suppressing all that stuff for centuries!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @flabdablet said:

    The goddamn liberal conspiracy has been actively suppressing all that stuff for centuries!

    You damn right it has! Stupid liberals for insisting that Massachusetts is south of Vermont!



  • For fuck's sake. Will they stop at nothing?



  • @flabdablet said:

    Conservatives find it impossible. That's why (a) they're conservatives and (b) they believe liberals who say they can do that are (b)(i) lying and (b)(ii) biased.
    Liberials and Conservative both suffer the same idiocy. The Liberals claim that conservapedia cunt flappery is just as slanted. I find both sides equally idiotic and prone to echo chambers. I want facts not a fucking opinon peice.

    @flabdablet said:

    Will they stop at nothing?
    Not until every country has a NHS!!!!



  • I think Wikipedia has done a really good job at being neutral, considering how incredibly hard that is when you rely on anonymous strangers for information.



  • @DogsB said:

    The Liberals claim that conservapedia cunt flappery is just as slanted.

    How dare they? Such a claim is completely without merit!



  • This thread would be so easy to derail on climate change



  • @anonymous234 said:

    I think Wikipedia has done a really good job at being neutral, considering how incredibly hard that is when you rely on anonymous strangers for information.

    What the fuck would you know, you ceiling-peeking liberal prevert? You just want to steal all our precious bodily fluids.



  • @fbmac said:

    This thread would be so easy to derail on climate change

    Climate change is all bullshit. There has been no warming at all since 2015.



  • It has been warming fast in the last few months here in the south hemisphere.



  • See, both sides are equally as batshit.



  • Omg! Its being getting colder here! It just affects the southern hemisphere.



  • @fbmac said:

    It has been warming fast in the last few months here in the south hemisphere.

    @DogsB said:

    Omg! Its being getting colder here! It just affects the southern hemisphere.

    Like I said. No warming at all since 2015. Explain that away, you fucking crypto-socialist one world government warmist weenies. Why do you hate rich people so much?



  • Fuck you! I love rich people. They pay taxes so i don't have too!



  • @DogsB said:

    both sides are equally as batshit.

    Hah! Conservapedia doesn't even have a page for batshit, unlike certain loony left sites I could mention.

    That, right there, is the kind of purity of essence that has made the American Right what it is today!
    The Liberty Bell March - John Philip Sousa – 03:34
    — SFUPraiense



  • No, no, they're not saying there's no climate change, they're just saying we shouldn't do anything about it because it would hurt the economy also what about China.



  • @anonymous234 said:

    they're just saying we shouldn't do anything about it

    Are you nuts? Do you want us all to freeze? Drill, baby, drill!



  • I see your batshit and raise you actual batshit. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=batshit crazy



  • @swayde said:

    They seem to have one of their political parties chock full of crazies

    IMAO, anyone who is involved in any political group is, by definition, insane.

    Hey, given that we're all crazy Fuckers, too, maybe we should form our own political party! We can call it 'The Lemon Party'...



  • The WTF Party sounds like something I would vote for.



  • @DogsB said:

    There is a reason why citing wikipedia will get you laughed at in most academicand research circles.

    [citation needed]

    (seriously though, anyone care to give any, I dunno, examples of biased articles? Or are we just circlejerking?)



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    circlejerking?

    That pretty much covers it, I would think.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Citing wikipedia in real academic and research circles will get you laughed at because it's not a scholarly source. The point of real academic and research work is to expand the body of human knowledge. Citing the dumbed down, cross referenced civilian version of the body of human knowledge is contraindicated because you're plugged into the industrial grade firehose version of the body of human knowledge. The goal is to pee far. Don't stand on the shoulders of midgets when you can stand on the shoulders of giants.

    Citing wikipedia in undergrad work would get you laughed at back when it was new because nobody understood the history functions and therefore it was perceived as impossible to check sources accurately.

    Citing wikipedia in undergrad work these days is roughly equivalent to citing the Encyclopedia Britannica. Nice overview, but you'd better have other stuff going on too.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    @DogsB said:
    There is a reason why citing wikipedia will get you laughed at in most academicand research circles.

    [citation needed]

    (seriously though, anyone care to give any, I dunno, examples of biased articles? Or are we just circlejerking?)

    The cluster fuck that is gamergate. Move out from there. The progressive figure heads tend to painted in a much more favourable light. Tory members were a cluster fuck and Labour whiter than white the last time I checked too. I wouldn't worry about any great liberal conspiracy though. Nobody takes wikipedia that seriously anymore. It's akin to saying my cousin's friend told me down the pub at this stage.



  • Except that bias (obviously) violates one of Wikipedia's most important policies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

    Why on earth would you want a fucking encyclopedia to be an echo chamber for your liberal viewpoints? Sounds like some SJW bullshit...perhaps a bit of maturation is in order for you? ;)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @rc4 said:

    Why on earth would you want a fucking encyclopedia to be an echo chamber for your liberal viewpoints?

    Because sometimes tumblr is not enough to contain it? :trolleybus:



  • @rc4 said:

    Why on earth would you want a fucking encyclopedia news stationto be an echo chamber for your liberal conservative viewpoints?

    FTFY

    In fact, Wikipedia isn't particularly Liberal in focus. As you point out, Neutral Point of View is strongly encouraged.

    Instead, it depends on who's doing the reading: liberals see a conservative bias, conservatives see a liberal bias. But the latter group is highly sensitive to, offended by, any hint of what they regard as bias, so that even natural fact is described as being liberal bias; so much so that they write articles like this to list and discuss so-called liberal bias. (There's more than just this page; each section has its own page elaborating on the bias of that category.)

    Basically, the bottom line is that Wikipedia must be biased because it will not parrot the political views of conservatives.



  • If it doesn't make Sarah Palin look crazy it can't have a liberal bias, right?



  • @ben_lubar said:

    Facts have a well-known liberal bias.

    I have noticed this, too. It's why I'm not a liberal.



  • @flabdablet said:

    Drill, baby, drill!

    The first thing you've said that makes any sense!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.