Lol, they don't even try to hide it anymore. You can't even cite Fox News on Wikipedia anymore unless it's not related to politics, culture, or religion. In other words - sports, and that's about it.
I have no stakes in this, but didn't Fox News themselves call themselves to be entertainment only? Like, in some court case they argues that Fox News isn't news, political or anything but entertainment meant to make jokes about everything?
The format of having regular information news along with opinion shows may be what you are thinking but Fox is all propaganda and the opinions are not actually held in any good faith by the employees of Fox .
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-carlson-successfully-argues-nobody-really-believes-tucker-carlson-is-reporting-facts/
One example
> didn’t Fox News themselves call themselves to be entertainment only?
Just like most networks, there’s Fox News (news) which is the actual reporting they publish, and then there’s Fox News opinion shows. They argued that the opinion shows are meant to be taken as entertainment.
"fActS hAVe a LiBeRal BiAs"
**Edit:** This comment was mocking the left wingers who screech this nonsense whilst using Wikipedia as the basis for their (demonstrably false) claims. It seems that, even when using the historically recognized "shorthand" for sarcasm[[1]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_caps#Usage_and_effect), many of this subreddit's users are incapable of understanding mockery.
This sub is wholly full of leftist trolls and fools locked in an echo-chamber of their own making.
Facts don't have a bias but leftists do and that's why they don't like facts. It's why they've now come up with the nonsense of "your" truth. There is no "your" truth, there is only THE truth.
Your comment comes originally from Stephen Colbert at the [2006 Whitehouse Correspondents Dinner ](https://youtu.be/UwLjK9LFpeo?si=rnkdn1UzSIMivQA4), when he used the phrase "Reality has a liberal bias" to mock GW Bush.
Exactly. Go look up a Republican in the House or Senate and the sections about political career, political positions, or personal life are practically designed to focus on controversy.
You won’t find the same level of scrutiny for the libs when anyone informed knows there’s plenty that can be written about them.
It started as a reaction to the Occupy Wall Street movement.
https://i.imgur.com/6nuIQoI.jpeg
Essentially, all the shit that has been going down over the past 12 or so years has been a deliberate, top-down effort by the powers that be to replace class conflict with racial (and gender) conflict.
Look no further than the pages for the [Trump campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign) and the [Biden campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_2024_presidential_campaign).
Just read the opening paragraphs; they have Biden 'protecting American democracy' and 'restoring the federal right to abortion'; meanwhile, Trump will 'impose the Jacksonian spoils system' and 'leans into violent and dehumanizing rhetoric' and has 'close connections to project 2025' which is 'an attempt for Trump to become a dictator and a path leading the United States towards autocracy'.
Then there's a paragraph about the court cases, another one about the primary, then a second dip at the court cases. The entire 'Background' section is about Jan 6 and the documents case.
Christ, I knew it would be biased....but it's over the top. There isn't the remotest pretense of objectivity. It's as if the Biden campaign wrote both articles.
I've always wanted to post side-by-side screenshots, where negative stuff is red, and positive stuff is highlighted green. But then I realized that the Trump side would just be a solid block of red, and the whole exercise just seems pointless.
They really didn't need to spend the resource on a study for this. One glance at just about any article that even is tangentially political could have told you this.
Studies generally collect a lot of data. If you don’t like the methodology or conclusions that’s fine to criticize them, but it’s good to understand things in statistical terms.
Regardless of what study, who sponsored it or what the conclusions are - 90% of all people just read the headline of the conclusion of a study and draw the consequence that the headline is 100% factual because it references a study. Criticism is good, using the collected data of a study is better, but let's not fool ourselves to think that even 1 out of 10 people care in any way about all of that.
Either the study supports my own views and then is deemed factually important, or ot contradicts my own views and thus is a fake study made up by sponsors by the 20 people ruling our country behind the curtains. Unfortunately, that's how studies are treated nowadays, outside the academic field.
Maybe I’m crazy, but last I checked, data analysis is an actual professional skill, a subset of mathematics, and good scientific studies are very often based on good data science. For example, as a part of my own public policy masters program, we were required to take a series of QM courses and I took a set of optional GIS courses. These courses are generic foundational analytical tools that can be used to study topics on anything from geology to OSINT or farming science. This is stuff like determining correlation vs causation using null hypothesis etc. It’s as non-political as it gets. When I read a sentence like “Studies don’t count as data” I genuinely don’t understand what point is even being made. Good studies based on good data are great! Bad studies based on faulty data are the worst. The ability to discern between the quality of different studies is a super important skill and one of the great benefits of the work done by think tanks like RAND, Brookings, Heritage, CSIS to represent or summarize good studies for the rest of us who are busy being experts in our own lives, whether it be a second grade math teacher (in my case), a mechanic, sailor, welder, accountant, etc etc.
Expertise is not sus.
Am I crazy or was there a story about Wiki deciding the Hunter laptop stuff was fake the same day Twitter buried the story?
Also I thought I read an article about how Wiki actually was taken over by far left editors who of course don’t believe in being impartial.
People on the right are more politically interested than people on the left and that tends to balance out the factors that you mention. The left has more people that just "know" they are supposed to believe X but could never be bothered to actually research it themselves since the details and the subject itself doesn't interest them. So while the left might have more keyboard warriors, ours are of a higher quality and so that tilts support our way in the court of public opinion. The problem is that these websites like reddit and wikipedia are not free markets of ideas. They are heavily curated by the left.
A big part of why the right tends to be "right" on the issues is because we are tolerant of opposing views and competition of ideas. By tolerating the left, we allow our ideas to be challenged and thus grow stronger. It's a catch 22 though. The left is intolerant of us and our ideas, so while we include them in positions of power they won't include us, and thus gradually take over the institutions regardless of how bad they are on the merits. In a way this is the tolerance of intolerance that Popper warned about. McCarthy was right.
> People on the right are more politically interested than people on the left
Not a coincidence that first time voters are heavily democrat.
The democrats are the default option for voting these days.
I still remember when this was like the old hard cover book version encyclopedias. but since the left ruins everything that they touch....it is now a worthless joke. Any leftist politician is just a politician. Any right wing politician is "far right politician...."
Yeah I think The Federalist noted the other day that anyone who calls themselves a centrist is really just a leftist. If you go to the centrist sub it’s mostly leftists participating. I think they’re just trying to move that old Overton Window and make it seem like BLM/Antifa/Just Stop Oil tactics are now mainstream.
That's not actually it. There are power-editors - same as reddit's powermods - who have special privileges and have final say on what edits get in. Guess how they lean?
The even bigger issue is that Wikipedia officially considers left-leaning sources to be reliable and right-leaning sources to be unreliable. This prevents people from even attempting to correct the left-wing bias on Wikipedia.
Here's the page with many sources listed and Wikipedia's stance on their reliability:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
MSNBC? Reliable. Fox News? Unreliable.
New York Times? Reliable. New York Post? Unreliable.
Breitbart is completely blacklisted because of the journalism they've done to expose the bias on Wikipedia.
Left-wing media can lie as much as they want, but they're still considered reliable by Wikipedia. Right-leaning media is falsely labeled unreliable. Until this issue with their stance on the "reliability" of sources is fixed, it will be a leftist bubble by design.
It's hilarious how one of the rare (but not few) Anti-Defamation League Ws (their statements on the Israel/Palestine War) caused them to create *three* separate entries to basically say "the ADL is credible about pretty much everything EXCEPT this *one* thing."
I fucking love it. XD
> Because Wikipedia is editable by literally anyone.
but just trying editing something to make it factual and it conflicts with the narrative. Within minutes it will be removed.
That isn't the reason Wikipedia is left biased. It is left biased because most of their power editors are highly pro-left to the extent that they would lock articles from editing if you add sources conflicting to the preferred Left narrative.
At the same time, if you are peddling the liked narrative, you can even link to a study purchase page as a relevant source even if the study has no relation to the topic being covered and it would be acceptable and the summary of study doesn't provide any relevant info .
I like to hear both sides. So for Reddit I subscribe to /r/Conservative but I don’t need to subscribe to /r/Liberal because I get that side for free with regular subreddits.
Well…duh!🙄
Which is why Wikipedia is untrustworthy as a source with regards to any controversial political topic.
To this day, I’m still surprised that adherents to leftist Orwellian groupthink
at Wikipedia haven’t edited the word “ Socialist “ out of the full name of the German Nazi Party .
I guess it would be too obvious.
It's easy to see their vitriol. Just look up Biden and Trump and compare the two. But again, when they're a generation of dog walkers and reddit mods, what else is there to do but edit wiki?
Yet another study doing nothing more than confirming the public statements of the institution in question. Wikipedia's editors have been quite open with their bias. Even the founder, who they pushed out some time ago, has publicly called them on this.
The record of changes made to each page is sometimes interesting reading, it becomes clear very quickly that pages are being modified to present liberal ideas in the best light
"Early life" gets deleted a lot too, nobody knows why...
In other news, water is still wet and left is still the opposite of right.
If they wanted to make an impact they'd create a competitor to Wikipedia that favors the right.
That's because they didn't play the game well. You don't blatantly name yourself "Conservapedia". You call your site something like "Plethora" and then make a statement that you will let anyone post anything as long as they can site their sources and that you won't use "elite poster status" for people who post to Plethora.
I semi retired about 10 years ago because of how biased it is. There's far more demands for sources on anything right leaning and they frequently change their rules to make conservatives or right leaning sources "less reliable" to use for citations, even when you are citing something that wouldn't need a source or be disputed had a leftoids said or done it.
They've long since stopped pretending to be unbiased (and by "they" I mean all media): if you point out their bias, they'll just retort with a snarky "reality has a liberal bias" and ban you from every forum they possibly can.
Whether you love her or hate her, the [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Taylor_Greene) entry for Marjorie Taylor Greene is beyond ridiculous.
It starts off this way: *"Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974), sometimes referred to by her initials MTG, is an American far-right politician, businesswoman, and conspiracy theorist"*
"conspiracy theorist" - several problems with that. First of all, all the sources for that statement, without exception, are heavily leftist.
Second of all, if she was a conspiracy theorist she isn't anymore - she apologized for her past statements.
Third of all, is that REALLY so prominent that it deserves mention in the very first line?? I mean, Mike Tyson was convicted of rape, but the entry for him doesn't say "Mike Tyson is a boxer and a rapist".
Ok lets assume (and this isn't really contested) that most college educated persons are liberal. Say its for "this" reason or "that" reason, or there's indoctrination, whatever; the point is the more education you have the more likely you are to be liberal. Only 6% of scientists identify as conservative.
So you're telling me that more educated people are more likely to go out of their way and contribute to a free online encyclopedia? Color me shocked!
Its quite some time, that I use Wikipedia for technical knowledge, where political biasing may not be suspected. Like who would put politics in an article about lithium battery chemistry for example :)
I was reading the section of JD Vance’s Facebook where it covers his different political positions.
It isn’t a list and explanation of his positions it reads like a point by point liberal fact check.
“He believes X but here’s why that’s wrong”.
It’s crazy over there.
Headline next week: Wikipedia adds The Daily Signal to the list of "unapproved sources".
Lol, they don't even try to hide it anymore. You can't even cite Fox News on Wikipedia anymore unless it's not related to politics, culture, or religion. In other words - sports, and that's about it.
I have no stakes in this, but didn't Fox News themselves call themselves to be entertainment only? Like, in some court case they argues that Fox News isn't news, political or anything but entertainment meant to make jokes about everything?
FNC, like all cable news outlets, has opinion shows. They also do news reporting, so in that sense they are no different from CNN, MSNBC, or NPR.
Do you understand why they are different?
Enlighten us.
That’s insane that I can’t see the difference. It’s on paper . There are receipts you can reference.
You
The format of having regular information news along with opinion shows may be what you are thinking but Fox is all propaganda and the opinions are not actually held in any good faith by the employees of Fox .
Great research project . https://open.spotify.com/episode/5fuih4NPRAfm3h8ffcBf7w?si=-73451UzR46oYJ6vaoxKNg
You call that lefty screed a “research project”? You must be joking.
https://substack.com/@decodingfoxnews?r=17de4k&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=profile
Decodingfoxnews is not an unbiased source.
They are very different
They are different in their political orientations, but not in their basic formats, which is what I referred to.
Yes . They are very different.
Like enormously different
Explain how Fox News and CNN are equivalent .
I didn’t say they are equivalent, I indicated that they both feature news reporting as well as opinion shows.
Their profit formats may be the same . It’s the content format which is different
Do you believe you are getting unbiased news coverage from any of those outlets?
Yes. . If you want to consume media for information /NEWS . Reuters or AP are generally very solid . .
That’s what Joy and Racheal said about their news segments.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-carlson-successfully-argues-nobody-really-believes-tucker-carlson-is-reporting-facts/ One example
> didn’t Fox News themselves call themselves to be entertainment only? Just like most networks, there’s Fox News (news) which is the actual reporting they publish, and then there’s Fox News opinion shows. They argued that the opinion shows are meant to be taken as entertainment.
The answer is yes, on numerous occasions they have used the "you cant use seriously" defense in court
You could try http://www.conservapedia.com 😁
"fActS hAVe a LiBeRal BiAs" **Edit:** This comment was mocking the left wingers who screech this nonsense whilst using Wikipedia as the basis for their (demonstrably false) claims. It seems that, even when using the historically recognized "shorthand" for sarcasm[[1]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_caps#Usage_and_effect), many of this subreddit's users are incapable of understanding mockery. This sub is wholly full of leftist trolls and fools locked in an echo-chamber of their own making.
Well, conservapedia will convince you that facts don't have a right wing bias.
Facts don't have a bias but leftists do and that's why they don't like facts. It's why they've now come up with the nonsense of "your" truth. There is no "your" truth, there is only THE truth.
Your comment comes originally from Stephen Colbert at the [2006 Whitehouse Correspondents Dinner ](https://youtu.be/UwLjK9LFpeo?si=rnkdn1UzSIMivQA4), when he used the phrase "Reality has a liberal bias" to mock GW Bush.
It should be . Its propaganda
No shit.
Exactly. Go look up a Republican in the House or Senate and the sections about political career, political positions, or personal life are practically designed to focus on controversy. You won’t find the same level of scrutiny for the libs when anyone informed knows there’s plenty that can be written about them.
ActBlue and other organizations got caught years ago buying mod accounts across different social media. It's been blatantly obvious since around 2012.
2012-2014 is kinda when the liberal madness began.
It started as a reaction to the Occupy Wall Street movement. https://i.imgur.com/6nuIQoI.jpeg Essentially, all the shit that has been going down over the past 12 or so years has been a deliberate, top-down effort by the powers that be to replace class conflict with racial (and gender) conflict.
And you will be labeled a commie for saying that.
Look no further than the pages for the [Trump campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign) and the [Biden campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_2024_presidential_campaign). Just read the opening paragraphs; they have Biden 'protecting American democracy' and 'restoring the federal right to abortion'; meanwhile, Trump will 'impose the Jacksonian spoils system' and 'leans into violent and dehumanizing rhetoric' and has 'close connections to project 2025' which is 'an attempt for Trump to become a dictator and a path leading the United States towards autocracy'. Then there's a paragraph about the court cases, another one about the primary, then a second dip at the court cases. The entire 'Background' section is about Jan 6 and the documents case.
Christ, I knew it would be biased....but it's over the top. There isn't the remotest pretense of objectivity. It's as if the Biden campaign wrote both articles.
I've always wanted to post side-by-side screenshots, where negative stuff is red, and positive stuff is highlighted green. But then I realized that the Trump side would just be a solid block of red, and the whole exercise just seems pointless.
I wonder at what point he can sue for slander?
Sherlock
Next they'll say Reddit favors the Left.
beat me to it
They really didn't need to spend the resource on a study for this. One glance at just about any article that even is tangentially political could have told you this.
It’s helpful to have solid data on this sort of thing.
Studies shouldn't really count as data, though. The sponsor always seems to benefit from the findings, for some unknown reason.
Studies generally collect a lot of data. If you don’t like the methodology or conclusions that’s fine to criticize them, but it’s good to understand things in statistical terms.
Regardless of what study, who sponsored it or what the conclusions are - 90% of all people just read the headline of the conclusion of a study and draw the consequence that the headline is 100% factual because it references a study. Criticism is good, using the collected data of a study is better, but let's not fool ourselves to think that even 1 out of 10 people care in any way about all of that. Either the study supports my own views and then is deemed factually important, or ot contradicts my own views and thus is a fake study made up by sponsors by the 20 people ruling our country behind the curtains. Unfortunately, that's how studies are treated nowadays, outside the academic field.
Maybe I’m crazy, but last I checked, data analysis is an actual professional skill, a subset of mathematics, and good scientific studies are very often based on good data science. For example, as a part of my own public policy masters program, we were required to take a series of QM courses and I took a set of optional GIS courses. These courses are generic foundational analytical tools that can be used to study topics on anything from geology to OSINT or farming science. This is stuff like determining correlation vs causation using null hypothesis etc. It’s as non-political as it gets. When I read a sentence like “Studies don’t count as data” I genuinely don’t understand what point is even being made. Good studies based on good data are great! Bad studies based on faulty data are the worst. The ability to discern between the quality of different studies is a super important skill and one of the great benefits of the work done by think tanks like RAND, Brookings, Heritage, CSIS to represent or summarize good studies for the rest of us who are busy being experts in our own lives, whether it be a second grade math teacher (in my case), a mechanic, sailor, welder, accountant, etc etc. Expertise is not sus.
I think this belongs in the kindergarten "water is wet" level of scientific study.
Didn't need a study for that one..
Am I crazy or was there a story about Wiki deciding the Hunter laptop stuff was fake the same day Twitter buried the story? Also I thought I read an article about how Wiki actually was taken over by far left editors who of course don’t believe in being impartial.
“Reality has a liberal bias 🤡” is often what they say
In reality it’s just the amount of no income no job basement dwellers who are perpetually online have a liberal bias.
Precisely
People on the right are more politically interested than people on the left and that tends to balance out the factors that you mention. The left has more people that just "know" they are supposed to believe X but could never be bothered to actually research it themselves since the details and the subject itself doesn't interest them. So while the left might have more keyboard warriors, ours are of a higher quality and so that tilts support our way in the court of public opinion. The problem is that these websites like reddit and wikipedia are not free markets of ideas. They are heavily curated by the left. A big part of why the right tends to be "right" on the issues is because we are tolerant of opposing views and competition of ideas. By tolerating the left, we allow our ideas to be challenged and thus grow stronger. It's a catch 22 though. The left is intolerant of us and our ideas, so while we include them in positions of power they won't include us, and thus gradually take over the institutions regardless of how bad they are on the merits. In a way this is the tolerance of intolerance that Popper warned about. McCarthy was right.
> People on the right are more politically interested than people on the left Not a coincidence that first time voters are heavily democrat. The democrats are the default option for voting these days.
I still remember when this was like the old hard cover book version encyclopedias. but since the left ruins everything that they touch....it is now a worthless joke. Any leftist politician is just a politician. Any right wing politician is "far right politician...."
"Extreme right conspiracy theorist"
Yeah I think The Federalist noted the other day that anyone who calls themselves a centrist is really just a leftist. If you go to the centrist sub it’s mostly leftists participating. I think they’re just trying to move that old Overton Window and make it seem like BLM/Antifa/Just Stop Oil tactics are now mainstream.
Because Wikipedia is editable by literally anyone. Liberals make it their lives mission to spread their twisted ideologies on everyone in the world
That's not actually it. There are power-editors - same as reddit's powermods - who have special privileges and have final say on what edits get in. Guess how they lean?
But they’re still editors at the end and liberal ones at that so my point does include them.
The even bigger issue is that Wikipedia officially considers left-leaning sources to be reliable and right-leaning sources to be unreliable. This prevents people from even attempting to correct the left-wing bias on Wikipedia. Here's the page with many sources listed and Wikipedia's stance on their reliability: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources MSNBC? Reliable. Fox News? Unreliable. New York Times? Reliable. New York Post? Unreliable. Breitbart is completely blacklisted because of the journalism they've done to expose the bias on Wikipedia. Left-wing media can lie as much as they want, but they're still considered reliable by Wikipedia. Right-leaning media is falsely labeled unreliable. Until this issue with their stance on the "reliability" of sources is fixed, it will be a leftist bubble by design.
It's hilarious how one of the rare (but not few) Anti-Defamation League Ws (their statements on the Israel/Palestine War) caused them to create *three* separate entries to basically say "the ADL is credible about pretty much everything EXCEPT this *one* thing." I fucking love it. XD
Give me one right wing media source that is reliable. ?
> Because Wikipedia is editable by literally anyone. but just trying editing something to make it factual and it conflicts with the narrative. Within minutes it will be removed.
Not if it’s liberal lol
I mean, he *did* say "edit it to make it factual" so...
That isn't the reason Wikipedia is left biased. It is left biased because most of their power editors are highly pro-left to the extent that they would lock articles from editing if you add sources conflicting to the preferred Left narrative. At the same time, if you are peddling the liked narrative, you can even link to a study purchase page as a relevant source even if the study has no relation to the topic being covered and it would be acceptable and the summary of study doesn't provide any relevant info .
No, not really any more. There is a club for "power" editors for Wikipedia, and you are not in it.
The real problem is AI is learning from wikipedia. Liberals know this and control wikipedia... and this indirectly allows them to control AI.
What is something that Wikipedia is grossly getting wrong or twisting? I’ve haven’t seen to much
We didn’t need a study but glad they did. Now do Reddit lmao
I like to hear both sides. So for Reddit I subscribe to /r/Conservative but I don’t need to subscribe to /r/Liberal because I get that side for free with regular subreddits.
Yea but this sub is dangerously brigaded with bad faith posters on certain topics, like clockwork
So many reddit subs are run by raging leftist mods, even the supposedly innocuous ones dealing with real estate, diy, etc.
Yep. Oh by the way so is reddit.
Reddit is worse than fb in that regard.
Well…duh!🙄 Which is why Wikipedia is untrustworthy as a source with regards to any controversial political topic. To this day, I’m still surprised that adherents to leftist Orwellian groupthink at Wikipedia haven’t edited the word “ Socialist “ out of the full name of the German Nazi Party . I guess it would be too obvious.
No way
It's easy to see their vitriol. Just look up Biden and Trump and compare the two. But again, when they're a generation of dog walkers and reddit mods, what else is there to do but edit wiki?
Tool of the communist regime is found to be biased towards the communist regime More news at 11
Wow, big news flash there !!!
if you try to go on wiki and search any party or political figure on the right they claim they are “far-right”
Yet another study doing nothing more than confirming the public statements of the institution in question. Wikipedia's editors have been quite open with their bias. Even the founder, who they pushed out some time ago, has publicly called them on this.
Even one of its founders says this.
I think they both do.
The record of changes made to each page is sometimes interesting reading, it becomes clear very quickly that pages are being modified to present liberal ideas in the best light "Early life" gets deleted a lot too, nobody knows why...
Shocking
In other news, the sky is found to be blue.
Definitely didn’t need a study for this.
I would have never known without this study.
Let me fix the headline error "The internet is biased in favor of Liberals"
Even one of the original founders said so.
Not surprised, the Chinese state owned mouthpiece is considered more reliable on that site than Fox News.
Well no shit. This has been known. What else is new? Water is wet?
Wikipedia is going to be biased towards the truth, and it just so happens that progressives say a lot less bullshit then conservatives.
Shocking I say.... shocking
In other news, water is still wet and left is still the opposite of right. If they wanted to make an impact they'd create a competitor to Wikipedia that favors the right.
They did. It’s called Conservapedia and it’s hilariously pathetic.
That's because they didn't play the game well. You don't blatantly name yourself "Conservapedia". You call your site something like "Plethora" and then make a statement that you will let anyone post anything as long as they can site their sources and that you won't use "elite poster status" for people who post to Plethora.
Doh, now tell us something we didn't know.
Find something “mainstream” that isn’t
Any updates on water being wet??
In other news, water wet and sky blue.
Same with Reddit, X, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Instagram, tiktok, etc...
In other news..... fire is hot
Yep. When they ask me to donate I LMFAO. Go woke go broke.
Next up: Reddit is biased toward democrats and Fox is biased toward republics! Learn more Wednesday at 6PM!
All Big Tech and media are biased. All of them.
Why does the left dominate media even though it is represents about half the country?
I'm pretty sure one of the founders, Larry Sanger, has said as such and is working on an alternative called the Encyclosphere.
In any article about a conservative figure, the first paragraph will just be a long list of buzz words.
Wikipedia is so bad. They will accept only approved sources even over primary sources.
So is every other institution in the Western world that isn't explicitly conservative.
Whoever controls Wikipedia controls the narrative. It has always been biased.
Wokepedia has no credibility in my book.
Well for starters you have to be literate and somewhat educated to contribute so….
I semi retired about 10 years ago because of how biased it is. There's far more demands for sources on anything right leaning and they frequently change their rules to make conservatives or right leaning sources "less reliable" to use for citations, even when you are citing something that wouldn't need a source or be disputed had a leftoids said or done it.
They've long since stopped pretending to be unbiased (and by "they" I mean all media): if you point out their bias, they'll just retort with a snarky "reality has a liberal bias" and ban you from every forum they possibly can.
I quit going to Wikipedia years ago when I started noticing their entries were slanted just like snoopes.
Whether you love her or hate her, the [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Taylor_Greene) entry for Marjorie Taylor Greene is beyond ridiculous. It starts off this way: *"Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974), sometimes referred to by her initials MTG, is an American far-right politician, businesswoman, and conspiracy theorist"* "conspiracy theorist" - several problems with that. First of all, all the sources for that statement, without exception, are heavily leftist. Second of all, if she was a conspiracy theorist she isn't anymore - she apologized for her past statements. Third of all, is that REALLY so prominent that it deserves mention in the very first line?? I mean, Mike Tyson was convicted of rape, but the entry for him doesn't say "Mike Tyson is a boxer and a rapist".
Ok lets assume (and this isn't really contested) that most college educated persons are liberal. Say its for "this" reason or "that" reason, or there's indoctrination, whatever; the point is the more education you have the more likely you are to be liberal. Only 6% of scientists identify as conservative. So you're telling me that more educated people are more likely to go out of their way and contribute to a free online encyclopedia? Color me shocked!
Gasp
I enjoy writing on little corners of uncontroversial Wikipedia. I prefer to play on single-player mode.
No way!
…”is run and maintained by - - liberals “. There I fixed it
You needed a study for that?…lol
Its quite some time, that I use Wikipedia for technical knowledge, where political biasing may not be suspected. Like who would put politics in an article about lithium battery chemistry for example :)
Well, duh.
No shit...
Sky is blue new study finds
And water is wet.
*"Water is wet! News at 11:00!"*
To nobody's surprise...
No shit.
Let me show you my shocked face...
Water is wet, news at 11
So instead of confirmation bias, this would be considered bias confirmation.
Also...water is wet.
Imagine my surprise.
The sky is blue
This is my surprised face 😶
I was reading the section of JD Vance’s Facebook where it covers his different political positions. It isn’t a list and explanation of his positions it reads like a point by point liberal fact check. “He believes X but here’s why that’s wrong”. It’s crazy over there.
We needed a study to realize that?
The article on project 2025 sure read bias.
Lol, it goes a little bit beyond biased. At this point it's a full blown psyop.
What a shock, NOT!
“Grass is green, new study finds”
Also, water is wet.
Water is wet. Study finds.
Gasp
This is public knowledge for many years.
Another study, "studying" what is blatantly obvious. Unless you are a sheep, then you need a "study" by "experts".
a "water is wet" level revelation.
A study was necessary?
No surprise
Color me not surprised one tiny little bit. 😆
Color me not surprised one bit. I had tested and proved this to myself years ago. 😆
Not a surprise.
[удалено]