8
0

Wikipedia co-founder: "Wikipedia Is Badly Biased"


 invite response                
2020 May 27, 5:44pm   1,406 views  25 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (55)   💰tip   ignore  

https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead. The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call “false balance.”2 The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science. Here are some examples from each of these subjects, which were easy to find, no hunting around. Many, many more could be given.
Wikipedia’s favorite president?

Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good. The only scandals that I could find that were mentioned were a few that the left finds at least a little scandalous, such as Snowden’s revelations about NSA activities under Obama. In short, the article is almost a total whitewash. You might find this to be objectively correct; but you cannot claim that this is a neutral treatment, considering that the other major U.S. party would treat it differently. On such a topic, neutrality in any sense worth the name essentially requires that readers not be able to detect the editors’ political alignment.
Not Wikipedia’s favorite president

Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke. Just for example, there are 5,224 none-too-flattering words in the “Presidency” section. By contrast, the following “Public Profile” (which the Obama article entirely lacks), “Investigations,” and “Impeachment” sections are unrelentingly negative, and together add up to some 4,545 words—in other words, the controversy sections are almost as long as the sections about his presidency. Common words in the article are “false” and “falsely” (46 instances): Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are “false.” Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so, especially without attribution. You might approve of Wikipedia describing Trump’s incorrect statements as “false,” very well; but then you must admit that you no longer support a policy of neutrality on Wikipedia.

I leave the glowing Hillary Clinton article as an exercise for the reader. ...


Never donate to the Wikipedia.

Not that it will matter much. The Wikipedia is now a paid agent of the globalist/Democratic/media/CCP establishment. They have way too much cash now. They took the bribe and are sucking globalist cock with relish. They hate you if you dare to be neutral and their editors will enforce the suppression of your input.

You will not find objective facts on the Wikipedia anymore. It was a good experiement, but now it's done, corrupted by cash.

Comments 1 - 25 of 25        Search these comments

1   MisdemeanorRebel   2020 May 29, 11:20am  

Another example:

The Inquisition in peninsular Spain was generally not particularly interested and was highly skeptical of accusations of witchcraft. In Spanish America Inquisitors were similarly concerned with delegitimizing women who were accused and confessed to these crimes by proving that the supposed magic was in fact a female delusion. While this was a somewhat successful endeavor on the elite level, the prosecution of these women in fact created the environment for lower and middle class women to claim outlandish abilities and thus brought them a degree of power within their local communities.[16]
...
For women, across class and race, the aim of this magic was frequently to change the balance of power within the marital sphere or create a situation where one might find a husband. Sometimes this was a simple kind of magic meant to make a husband stay "true" to his wife, other times it included aims of impotency or obedience. Some women would use their menstrual blood or the water already used to clean their genitals in "encorselled" food; not only does this play on powerful gender roles of a woman's place in the private sphere, it also represents a metaphorical penetration of the male by the female as a way to hold power over the husband.[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Inquisition

This is a Social Postmodern Theory, which is an overlong in an entry about the MEXICAN INQUISITION, showing Wikipedia's bias. It goes on for 4 paragraphs.

I came across this completely by accident, looking to remind myself when the Mexican Inquisition ended (~1820) for another thread. Just shows how pozzed Wikipedia is.
2   Patrick   2020 May 30, 10:51am  

Another example, the deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_Method because feminism.

Fortunately, it is still available at:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080608095253/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_Method

Thank got for archive.org. I hope they keep their integrity so it becomes possible for researchers to clearly show how the Wikipedia lost their own integrity.

Just to annoy the forces of censorship, I posted a copy on patrick.net: https://patrick.net/post/1332544/2020-05-30-deleted-from-wikipedia-mystery-method

What other articles can we find which have been deleted from Wikipedia? Maybe it's easy to search https://www.archive.org for Wikipedia and "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name".
3   Patrick   2020 May 30, 1:39pm  

Can't figure out how to do such a search. A direct search for "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" turns up only a handful of sites, and not even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_Method

So their search function is kinda broken.
4   Minime   2020 May 31, 6:34am  

Is there alternative? Seems like easy site to build
5   Patrick   2020 May 31, 10:24am  

@Minime there is this: https://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Lol, https://www.conservapedia.com/Google is a good article.

It doesn't cover everything, but does seem to cover political issues very well. Looks like you have to join to edit anything.
6   Minime   2020 May 31, 2:33pm  

Thank you @Patrick. Qurious who owns this site. Hope we can have publicly owned domain so nobody can buy it out.
7   FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden   2020 May 31, 2:46pm  

Patrick says
@Minime there is this: https://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Lol, https://www.conservapedia.com/Google is a good article.

It doesn't cover everything, but does seem to cover political issues very well. Looks like you have to join to edit anything.


I like it, this is good.
8   Minime   2020 May 31, 2:53pm  

Interesting what happen when tried viewing your link @Patrick from my phone. I have Google wifi. After clicking few times on 2 links you provided (it was by accident) i got stuck after 4 clicks. Page doesnt load. I tried clicking again and new tab had same result. Hmm i turned off wifi and switched to Lte. Everything worked just fine. I went through sboutt 20 clicks. No problem.

I have 2 WiFis: original from At&t and Google wifi. If i use Att wifi - no problem. Multiple clicks not a single page freeze. Switch to Google wifi and after few tries my page loading your link is stuck again.

Wow.
10   Patrick   2020 May 31, 3:54pm  

Minime says
Qurious who owns this site. Hope we can have publicly owned domain so nobody can buy it out.


If you check "whois conservapedia.com" from a terminal window, you see that the owner's name is hidden.

Also, I don't think there is any such thing as a publicly owned domain name, but it sounds like a good idea.
11   Minime   2020 May 31, 5:48pm  

Both links: main page and google. Feels like this whole domain is blacklisted
12   MisdemeanorRebel   2020 Jun 8, 1:41pm  

If Wikipedia no longer has a neutral policy, then Section 230 says they're a publisher and open to lawsuits.

Imagine that. DOJ declares them a publisher, and says to the Country's Defamation Lawyers:

13   richwicks   2020 Jun 8, 1:50pm  

Patrick says
If you check "whois conservapedia.com" from a terminal window, you see that the owner's name is hidden.


Conservapedia is a fake site. Their purpose is to be false opposition, so you get articles like this:

https://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

It's what a liberal thinks the right believes. Not what they actually believe.

Wikipedia has been dead for a long time. It was never actually unbiased. They won't even admit the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a false flag still. That's still "a conspiracy theory" despite the Pentagon Papers.
14   richwicks   2020 Jun 9, 8:30am  

NoCoupForYou says
If Wikipedia no longer has a neutral policy, then Section 230 says they're a publisher and open to lawsuits.


They do the bidding of the people that control the US government. The law won't be enforced against them.
15   MisdemeanorRebel   2020 Jun 13, 11:38pm  

@Patrick

Now Proven beyond doubt:


I took this screenshot myself because I thought it was exaggerated bullshit and checked it out personally.

Churchill's pic was only disappeared a few hours ago, so this is related to the UK Riots.

I don't know if this is Google who removed it, or Wikipedia somehow took it off their index, but this ain't no coincidence.
16   Patrick   2020 Jun 14, 10:37am  

I was thinking that https://archive.org/ could be used to prove the systematic suppression of non-pozzed voices on Wikipedia, but now archive.org itself is being threatened with lawsuits and may be shut down.

https://nerdist.com/article/internet-archive-ending-free-books-program-early/
18   MisdemeanorRebel   2020 Jun 23, 10:24pm  

Compare their Veganism page to any low-carb diet entry of your choice. Pretty much each of the latter is called a fad diet with "Liver Damage" potential and a "Fad". Paleo is listed as being "dangerous" for low Vitamin D intake as well.

Yet not Veganism, even though the B-12 deficiency, Vitamin D, etc. issues are worse than regular Vegetarianism or any of the Paleo Diets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism
19   just_passing_through   2020 Jun 23, 10:42pm  

I'm not dietician but there are some good ones out there I should take advice from. I've always been high saturated fat, probably high protein person. I only add salt if I cook it... Sometimes high carbs but I'm not a bread, chip, sugar or cracker junkie. Quality food just not as per the BS govt. Was only a 1 or 2 year soda guy until this last gig, mostly water. Lots of beer. Plenty of vodka. Lots of 'partaking'. Very athletic first half of my life until injuries. Mid 40s now.

A couple of years ago I had this job where I was able to MRI, CT Scan, echo cardiogram and blood test myself and then write algorithms for it.

I'm like a goddamn baby. My arteries and veins have ZERO calcification, a bit over weight but no liver fat (which lots of skinny people have) and little visceral fat. I was eating burgers and fries, milkshakes, pizzas during the tests. Biometric screenings were great re: cholesterol etc.

I was not entirely surprised because before that I always sailed through my biometrics as did my dad with a similar diet. Other family members on my mom's side are on cholesterol meds.

Long story short I think most of the officially recommended diet stuff is BS and varies by person. Veganism is downright frightening unless you're a sea-moss eater or something. There is a lot of new info coming out and some badass dieticians with mechanistic molecular biology behind their recommendations.

Damn it. I'm off topic again.
20   FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut   2020 Jun 24, 8:59am  

Guys what if we just download wikipedia, clean it up, and leave that to be the better version? Whole point of information is honesty, and seems like Wikipedia gave up on honesty, and let leftists turn it into shit.

I just don't know what it takes to make something like that editable with users and admin rights, so not every random jackass goes in and mocks it up. But if someone is interested in helping, we can make a new project work I think.
21   Patrick   2020 Jun 24, 10:13am  

I'm interested.

The difficulty is moderation. If you have no moderation, it will quickly fill with spam. But if you do have moderation, it has to be fair.

Where can we find a lot of fair moderators?

Technically, the Wikipedia should simply be a distributed git repo. Everyone would have a whole copy of it, and there would be a record of each edit. People would submit pull requests to get their changes in, and the moderators would be the ones accepting pull requests or not.

The total size of the text and images are probably not all that large. The total English text is only 16GB compressed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia
22   FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut   2020 Jun 24, 10:46am  

Patrick says
I'm interested.

The difficulty is moderation. If you have no moderation, it will quickly fill with spam. But if you do have moderation, it has to be fair.

Where can we find a lot of fair moderators?

Technically, the Wikipedia should simply be a distributed git repo. Everyone would have a whole copy of it, and there would be a record of each edit. People would submit pull requests to get their changes in, and the moderators would be the ones accepting pull requests or not.

The total size of the text and images are probably not all that large. The total English text is only 16GB compressed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia


i'll email you :)
23   Ceffer   2020 Jun 24, 11:51am  

Patrick says
"Wikipedia Is Badly Biased"

"Wikipedia Is Purposely Biased"

There, fixed it. Never underestimate agency, or believe agency denial.
25   richwicks   2021 Jan 12, 10:25am  

Patrick says
@Minime there is this: https://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page


I think conservapedia was created as a joke on fundamentalist Christians.

I'm not going to bother to look it up now, but their article on evolution was silly in the extreme 10 years ago. Then (and maybe now) it was absolute impossible to correct misconceptions or contribute which it conflicted with religious belief.

I don't even consider Christianity to be "conservative" - it's a religion, it's outside of socio-economic political system. It can be part of it, but I know plenty of Buddhists you'd thing are "Conservative" who aren't Christian at all.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions