Wikipedia's liberal bias
-
Instead, it depends on who's doing the reading: liberals see a conservative bias, conservatives see a liberal bias.
You should have stopped there.
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;
Because this just shows your bias. People on both sides of the liberal / conservative spectrum do plenty of stupid things. Trying to pretend that your side doesn't just makes you look like an ass.
-
Because this just shows your bias.
Words like "bias", "terrorist", and "Benghazi" have generally been used by right wing people to describe people they don't like. Similarly, words like "fracking", "global warming", and "fuck you Ben, that was two words" have been used by left wing people.
-
It's not like that. More that the things I like about it are the same things other liberals like about it, the same things conservatives don't like about it, and that's what makes it more susceptible to liberal bias than conservative.
Trying to maintain neutral point of view is absolutely necessary for any place on the web that doesn't want to immediately devolve into poeslaw stupidity. I mean you look at the wikipedia definition of homophobia, there's no denying that's more liberal than it is conservative
Poor @dogsballs probably facepalmed himself like fifteen times just skimming the onebox. But that's just liberal by way of presenting up-to-date information about a social issue. People who don't keep themselves on the cutting edge of such things are necessarily going to get frustrated. And isn't that basically the definition of conservative? Not jumping on every bandwagon?
But it's hard to believe conservapedia would be anybody's choice as a source of information, I mean, look at this shit:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia
Homophobia would be an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals, if it really existed. The current usage of terms like "homophobic" and "homophobe" imply that all opposition to homosexuality is crazy. Actually there are many sociological, psychological and medical reasons that many logically-thinking people oppose homosexuality. People who abuse terms like "homophobia" are implying (whether they know it or not), that it's impossible to "love the sinner and hate the sin".Thats what happens when you've got your bias right in the name of your site; when you don't at least try to maintain your neutrality. I love how they fucking lead with the claim that they are opposed to the current usage of the term. I'm not trying to make fun of anyone's beliefs here, I'm just trying to illustrate why I think that a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit is never going to be both good at what it does and support conservatism. And of course, don't forget about the feedback loop between conservatives getting frustrated with Wikipedia's content and their willingness to edit articles on there.
Anyway, for good measure, here's rationalwiki's take on it
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Homophobia
Homophobia is the irrational fear or hatred of homosexuality, non-heterosexual people, or anything or anybody that deviates from a strictly normative heterosexual approach to sexuality and sexual identity.They start out with a definition that sounds more like conservapedia's than wiki's, but then the entire rest of their article is them tilting at various strawman opinions that they've ascribed to homophobes. That's where believing that you're not biased—believing that you're just following sound, fact-based reasoning to its logical conclusion—is gonna get you. Rationalists are the worst.
-
Poor @dogsballs probably facepalmed himself like fifteen times just skimming the onebox.
Twice actually. Transgender people have fuck all to do with homophobia. I think the term is been stretch a bit there. Also, when did antipathy become homophobic? I'm an anti-social arsehole who doesn't give a fuck for anyone and now by Wikipedia's defination I'm homophobic. Congratulations I'm not going to donate to Wikipedia this year or ever again. Thank you for pointing that out.But that's just liberal by way of presenting up-to-date information about a social issue. People who don't keep themselves on the cutting edge of such things are necessarily going to get frustrated.
You say liberal way of presenting information. It's an encyclopedia. They should just present information. And your opinion here more than suggests a liberal bias which shouldn't exist when presenting information.It funny you should mention rationalwiki and conservapedia because it's there that lunacy is the norm. With a bit of luck Wikipedia will drive out the lunatics to those sites and we can a fairly unbiaiest encyclopedia.
I'm just trying to illustrate why I think that a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit is never going to be both good at what it does and support conservatism.
I don't want it to support either side. I just want it to present information.Something like wikipedia needs to exist. I believe that it has done more good for the world thus far but it needs to be improved because now apparently I'm homophobic for been indifferent to someone been gay.
*edit grammar and last paragraph of nonsense.
-
Congratulations I'm not going to donate to Wikipedia this year or ever again.
To be fair, I wasn't going to them either. However, my non-donations are a protest over the annoyingness of their funding drive adverts.
-
I'm sure Jimmy Wales will cry himself to sleep.
On his big bed made of money.
-
Adblock needs an option to stop wikipedia nagging for money
I don't even know why I'm not aware of any growing popular clone, because I couldn't stand them with all those popups during their nagging campaign
-
Also, when did antipathy become homophobic? I'm an anti-social arsehole who doesn't give a fuck for anyone
A little reading comprehension reveals that the article meant antipathy(/hate) specifically targeted towards gays. (Or do you also consider yourself a bigot, a racist, a misogynist, etc?)
If you want to see what Wikipedia thinks of you, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour.You say liberal way of presenting information. It's an encyclopedia. They should just present information.
Information can be correct and incorrect. And whether it's correct and incorrect is subjective and thus subject to all kinds of biases.
For example, take Wikipedia's quote of
"Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)."Any way you look at it, this is a piece of information - a definition of homophobia.
But is it the correct definition?
The person who wrote it obviously thinks so.
You stated to think it's not.You can argue using logic ("homophobia == homo != transgender") but that doesn't magically turn your opinion into fact, and the wiki editor could argue back using logic ("word definitions change over time to mean things that don't quite jive with the root of the word"*).
Now let's stretch reality a bit and assume such argument wouldn't then quickly devolve into name calling.
Instead, you would both agree to scour bodies of text to see how often homophobia is used to include hate against transgenders.
You now have several problems:-
Which sources count for this? You might say that books and maybe refutable blogs count while internet comments don't since they're made by idiots. The Wikipedia editor might counter that internet comments are generally a better indicative than books since they may be more up-to-date and that whether the writer is an idiot or not is irrelevant.
(Also, the opinions on this matter for both of you will likely mysteriously align with your opinion on gays vs transgenders) -
What percentage of homophobia-about-transgenders users versus homophobia-about-gays users is needed to make the homophobia-also-about-transgenders definition stand? 1:1? 1:2? 2:1?
Again, you would both use logic to argue points that will - mysteriously - support your opinion on gays vs transgenders.
At the end, you could end up agreeing to change wikipedia's definition to one of:
"Homophobia encompasses [...] lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)"
"Homophobia encompasses [...] lesbian, gay, bisexual"
"Homophobia encompasses [...] lesbian, gay, bisexual or - many would say - transgender (LGBT)"
"Homophobia encompasses [...] lesbian, gay, bisexual or - some would say - transgender (LGBT)"
"Homophobia encompasses [...] lesbian, gay, bisexual or - certain individuals would say - transgender (LGBT)"Either way, the new definition is once again a piece of information that may be thought to be correct or incorrect and most likely shows liberal or conservative bias simply because many liberals are more likely to want to expand the definition to transgenders while many conservatives are more likely to want to narrow it to just gays.
<><script>And this is the longest post I have here. It's entirely trolling-free, too. I'm afraid I won't be able to keep either of these metrics up for subsequent responses to criticisms of this post [made by idiot orangutans]
-
-
TL;DR.
You big bumlord.
Also, bisexual isn't necessarily homosexual. I'm not a gay, but I've fucked a man who is.
-
TL;DR - my post exists outside the normal rules of subjectivity and everyone who doesn't agree with it is a god damned monkey person.
-
A little reading comprehension reveals that the article meant antipathy(/hate) specifically targeted towards gays. (Or do you also consider yourself a bigot, a racist, a misogynist, etc?)If you want to see what Wikipedia thinks of you, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour.
Well little mr reading comprehension did you notice that I only read the one box. After reading that one box I doubt that Wikipedia has anything of value to impart on social issues but do provide a summary. I'll be happy to ignore it.Information can be correct and incorrect. And whether it's correct and incorrect is subjective and thus subject to all kinds of biases.
Yes information can be incorrect however facts aren't. Show us facts and do your best not let your bias interfere. Gosh if only people were hired to do such a thing.Information can be correct and incorrect. And whether it's correct and incorrect is subjective and thus subject to all kinds of biases.
Or we can go to the dictionary. You know that thing that establishes what a basic set of symbols mean to aid communication. The three I checkedFor example, take Wikipedia's quote of "Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)."
Any way you look at it, this is a piece of information - a definition of homophobia.But is it the correct definition?The person who wrote it obviously thinks so.You stated to think it's not.
You can argue using logic ("homophobia == homo != transgender") but that doesn't magically turn your opinion into fact, and the wiki editor could argue back using logic ("word definitions change over time to mean things that don't quite jive with the root of the word"*).
Now let's stretch reality a bit and assume such argument wouldn't then quickly devolve into name calling.Instead, you would both agree to scour bodies of text to see how often homophobia is used to include hate against transgenders.You now have several problems:
Which sources count for this? You might say that books and maybe refutable blogs count while internet comments don't since they're made by idiots. The Wikipedia editor might counter that internet comments are generally a better indicative than books since they may be more up-to-date and that whether the writer is an idiot or not is irrelevant.(Also, the opinions on this matter for both of you will likely mysteriously align with your opinion on gays vs transgenders)
What percentage of homophobia-about-transgenders users versus homophobia-about-gays users is needed to make the homophobia-also-about-transgenders definition stand? 1:1? 1:2? 2:1?Again, you would both use logic to argue points that will - mysteriously - support your opinion on gays vs transgenders.At the end, you could end up agreeing to change wikipedia's definition to one of:"Homophobia encompasses [...] lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)""Homophobia encompasses [...] lesbian, gay, bisexual""Homophobia encompasses [...] lesbian, gay, bisexual or - many would say - transgender (LGBT)""Homophobia encompasses [...] lesbian, gay, bisexual or - some would say - transgender (LGBT)""Homophobia encompasses [...] lesbian, gay, bisexual or - certain individuals would say - transgender (LGBT)"
Either way, the new definition is once again a piece of information that may be thought to be correct or incorrect and most likely shows liberal or conservative bias simply because many liberals are more likely to want to expand the definition to transgenders while many conservatives are more likely to want to narrow it to just gays.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/homophobia
Definition of HOMOPHOBIA
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people… See the full definition
Three relatively respected institutions that somehow manage to not have bias in their definitions.
Even better
Homophobia | Causes, Effects & Solutions
Homophobia, culturally produced fear of or prejudice against homosexuals that sometimes manifests itself in legal restrictions or, in extreme cases, bullying or even violence against homosexuals (sometimes called “gay bashing”). The term homophobia was coined in the late 1960s and was used
A long winded definition for homophobia without liberal or conservative bullshit.
Also this
7 Animals That Turn White in Winter
This Encyclopedia Britannica Animals list investigates the peculiarities of 7 animals that turn white in winter.
I think I've found my new home.
-
There's also some people that have some sort of anti-wikipedia fetish. If you quote or mention Wikipedia as a random example it automatically invalidates your entire argument.
I think we should call it "reductio ad Wikipedium". Wikipedia says X, but Wikipedia is not trustworthy, therefore X is probably false.
-
Shhh... Monkeys don't talk.
-
Words like "bias", "terrorist", and "Benghazi" have generally been used by right wing people to describe people they don't like.
Yup. Proof that left wingers are terrorist sympathizers. JUST AS I WAS TAUGHT!
-
There's also some people that have some sort of anti-wikipedia fetish. If you quote or mention Wikipedia as a random example it automatically invalidates your entire argument.
I'm almost one of them. If you're trying to make a serious argument and you only rely on wikipedia then I will laugh at you.However for shitposting on this forum its usually enough.I think we should call it "reductio ad Wikipedium". Wikipedia says X, but Wikipedia is not trustworthy, therefore X is probably false.
Something like wikipedia needs to exist but wikipedia's reputation has taken such a battering in recent years that it is hard to take it seriously. Most websites where anyone can edit suffer that problem. Pre wikipedia there' was an incident where Dara O Brian was asked a question about his coke can collection. He had actually put the information on IMDB to catch out poor research.
Shhh... Monkeys don't talk.
That is so insulting! I identify as a troll you trollophobe.
-
Anyway, for good measure, here's rationalwiki's take on it
I love these guys. They dare you to call yourself crazy right in their name.
-
I thought I should leave this here.
-
Wikipedia's isn't so much liberal as it is unbiased; being conservative does not make you homophobic. Conservapedia's take is entirely homophobic. An encyclopedia cannot be homophobic when it defines something, or else it delves into personal attacks. Simply because more liberals are open to homosexuality than people with conservative political leanings does not mean that homophobia is a conservative thing; indeed, there are liberals with homophobic attitudes and conservatives with more accepting ones.
-
We're just too sexy for your filter.
-
It's not a safe space!!!
-
I thought I should leave this here.
The
ratio is too high! We must be doing something correct!
-
(seriously though, anyone care to give any, I dunno, examples of biased articles? Or are we just circlejerking?)
I did. That's what started this thread. I issued a challenge to the SJWs to take any of the wikipedia definitions linked in the guacamole thread with the corresponding definitions from dictionary.com and guaranteed that they would be different. It would have been a simple matter to post the definitions and prove me wrong, but that didn't happen. What happened instead was missing the point ("of course they're different, otherwise it would be a copyright violation!") and an ad hominem attack ("dictionary.com is owned by right-wing corporation therefore is also biased").
-
Three relatively respected institutions that somehow manage to not have bias in their definitions.
Even better
Homophobia | Causes, Effects & Solutions
Homophobia, culturally produced fear of or prejudice against homosexuals that sometimes manifests itself in legal restrictions or, in extreme cases, bullying or even violence against homosexuals (sometimes called “gay bashing”). The term homophobia was coined in the late 1960s and was used
A long winded definition for homophobia without liberal or conservative bullshit.
Also this
7 Animals That Turn White in Winter
This Encyclopedia Britannica Animals list investigates the peculiarities of 7 animals that turn white in winter.
I think I've found my new home.
A dictionary is not an encyclopedia. I don't see how Wikipedia's entry would sound significantly different from those if you condensed it to a single short sentence.
Now about Britannica, what makes you so sure there is no bias? Just take this bit from the first paragraph (my emphasis):The term homophobia was coined in the late 1960s and was used prominently by George Weinberg, an American clinical psychologist, in his book Society and the Healthy Homosexual (1972). [b]Although the suffix phobia generally designates an irrational fear, in the case of homophobia the word instead refers to an attitudinal disposition[/b] ranging from mild dislike to abhorrence of people who are sexually or romantically attracted to individuals of the same sex.
And now Weinberg's own words (dito):I coined the word homophobia to mean [b]it was a phobia about homosexuals. ... It was a fear of homosexuals[/b] which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for—home and family.It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does.
Although he "did not intend to suggest that homophobia represented a diagnostic category on par with irrational fears of heights or snakes" (p.10), one thing is clear in this paragraph: first is the fear, and the disdain is its result. Wikipedia quotes Weinberg's paragraph while referring to the source—Britannica leaves you no choice but to believe the author. Anderson certainly is a specialist in the field but he has his opinions, too.
-
What happened instead was missing the point ("of course they're different, otherwise it would be a copyright violation!") and an ad hominem attack ("dictionary.com is owned by right-wing corporation therefore
it is alsoat least as likely to be biased as Wikipedia whose bias I had proved by assertion").
FTFY
-
Have fun arguing with your shoulder aliens.
For the record, my statements were only about the particular wikipedia definitions posted in the guacamole thread. I made no statements about the accuracy of wikipedia in general. But you read the guacamole thread so you were already in a position to know that.
-
Have fun arguing with your shoulder aliens.
Time to stick some fingers in your ears and sing "lalala" as you're wont to do
-
There's no point arguing with people who can't or won't accurately understand my position. If you want to call that sticking fingers in my ears, go right ahead.
-
-
when did antipathy become homophobic? I'm an anti-social arsehole who doesn't give a fuck for anyone and now by Wikipedia's defination I'm homophobic.
-
don't see how Wikipedia's entry would sound significantly different from those if you condensed it to a single short sentence.
I see that you didn't look at any of the links.Wikipedia quotes Weinberg's paragraph while referring to the source—Britannica leaves you no choice but to believe the author. Anderson certainly is a specialist in the field but he has his opinions, too.
Overlooking the fact that if you scroll to the bottom of the article you'll see that the author of the article is actually a Professor of sociology. Holds 4 degress. Has written 12 books and has written 50 peer reviewed papers and actually mentions where he gets all his information inline rather than hoping that someone will scroll to the bottom of the page to look it up.I might be having an aneurysm so I'll leave it to you to tell me which is more reliable?
-
I think we should call it "reductio ad Wikipedium"
-
@DogsB said:
No. I'm pretty certain that indifference bordering on seething hatred is what I feel for most people.when did antipathy become homophobic? I'm an anti-social arsehole who doesn't give a fuck for anyone and now by Wikipedia's defination I'm homophobic.
-
There's no point arguing with people who can't or won't accurately understand my position. If you want to call that sticking fingers in my ears, go right ahead.
Not that. This.
-
Fuck you for linking to a thread that I muted and for linking to an example of exactly what I'm talking about: someone who can't or won't accurately understand my position.
-
@LaoC said:
You need to put on your glasses.don't see how Wikipedia's entry would sound significantly different from those if you condensed it to a single short sentence.
I see that you didn't look at any of the links.@LaoC said:
Some people call that a "specialist". Did you want to tell me anything I didn't know?Wikipedia quotes Weinberg's paragraph while referring to the source—Britannica leaves you no choice but to believe the author. Anderson certainly is a specialist in the field but he has his opinions, too.
Overlooking the fact that if you scroll to the bottom of the article you'll see that the author of the article is actually a Professor of sociology. Holds 4 degress.Has written 12 books and has written 50 peer reviewed papers and actually mentions where he gets all his information inline rather than hoping that someone will scroll to the bottom of the page to look it up.
Using that new-fangled technology called "anchors" I don't even have to scroll to the citations where they are available in Wikipedia. The last Britannica section "Contemporary attitudes toward homosexuality" has exactly zero references though, despite wordings like "Research in the early 21st century found ... " that would, in Wikipedia, certainly have prompted someone to insert a "citation needed".I might be having an aneurysm so I'll leave it to you to tell me which is more reliable?
Obviously the words of the guy who coined the term. Did you really assume I wrote this without checking who Anderson is?
-
Fuck you for linking to a thread that I muted
Are your fingers not firmly enough in your ears?and for linking to an example of exactly what I'm talking about: someone who can't or won't accurately understand my position.
Proof by Assertion is not a "position" that's worthy of discussion.
-
Yup. Proof that left wingers are terrorist sympathizers. JUST AS I WAS TAUGHT!
Your trolling in this thread is shallow and derivative, and far too obvious.
4/10
-
There shouldn't be any bias. There shouldn't be any point of view. There should just be facts.
If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?
-
This thread would be so easy to derail on climate change
Uh, dude, it's called Global Warming now, eh? Get with the times.
-
You need to put on your glasses.
It appears you're projecting now. Don't worry take all the time you need.Obviously the words of the guy who coined the term.Did you really assume I wrote this without checking who Anderson is?
It would appear that way but I'm pleased to see that sanity and common sense prevailed.The last Britannica section "Contemporary attitudes toward homosexuality" has exactly zero references though, despite wordings like "Research in the early 21st century found ... " that would, in Wikipedia, certainly have prompted someone to insert a "citation needed".
Considering the author's qualifications you could assume that he is drawing from his own expertise but there shouldn't be any ambiguity.
-
@DogsB said:
vibrations in the air don't stop existing because someone isn't there to hear them. FFS!There shouldn't be any bias. There shouldn't be any point of view. There should just be facts.
If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?
-
-
vibrations in the air don't stop existing because someone isn't there to hear them. FFS!
And how do you know that?
-
Is the Pope shitting on it?
He wouldn't really be much of a Pope if he wasn't, now would he?
-
I thought he was supposed to be shitting in it.
-
Because this just shows your bias. People on both sides of the liberal / conservative spectrum do plenty of stupid things. Trying to pretend that your side doesn't just makes you look like an ass.
Really? Show me anywhere on the web where liberals have built an extensive library of 20 pages in a wiki, detailing extensively every tiny offense of Wikipedia. Anywhere.
Save your time looking at Liberapedia; the only page they have is a parody of the Conservopedia pages.
-
Really? Show me anywhere on the web where liberals have built an extensive library of 20 pages in a wiki, detailing extensively every tiny offense of Wikipedia. Anywhere.
Well, they were out committing those Wikipedia offenses in the first place, so why would they complain about it?
Save your time looking at Liberapedia; the only page they have is a parody of the Conservopedia pages.
Please, the interwebs are full of people losing their shit about Fox News. Also: The Daily Show. C'mon, you can't be seriously saying that all liberals never do stupid things.
-
C'mon, you can't be seriously saying that all liberals never do stupid things.
Sure he can. You remember the SJWs Always Lie book that was linked in another thread? It turns out the SJWs have a rebuttal entitled SJWs Never Lie. I'm starting to think these people really have no limits to how low they will stoop.
-
SJWs Never Lie
Despite the claims of evil bigots, those who fight for social justice never lie. And if they did, the means would be justified by the ends.
Wonder who's behind that.
-
Please, the interwebs are full of people losing their shit about Fox News. Also: The Daily Show. C'mon, you can't be seriously saying that all liberals never do stupid things.
Okay, good point.
Homophobia - Wikipedia
Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data
