all 52 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 95 points 1 year ago

"Stop accurately documenting my actual behavior!" - House Repugnicans

  • source
  • [–] 79 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It’s funny, because they clearly have the idea in their head that Wikipedia is a single organization capable of an ideological bias. When if you take a single look at some talk pages, it would become clear very quickly that Wikipedia is built on people vociferously disagreeing and bringing sources to make the information presented ever more credible and unbiased.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago

    Calling out Republicans for lies and antidemocratic behavior is not "bias".

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago

    We're investigating private companies for bias now? Are Truth Social and Fox News next??

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Reality has a known liberal bias.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago

    I mean, we all know that reality has a well known liberal bias...

  • source
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I remember a time when telling the truth wasn't considered bias by the Republican party. It was the same time when, "conservative speech" didn't mean lies, misinformation, and hate speech.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    The answer to any bias in Wikipedia is to cite more verifiable sources, use better sound reasoning and update when newer evidence is found.

    The answer is probably not the wishful thinking of one of USA's unrepresentative main parties. To learn about public misrepresentation in government check out a page from Wikipedia.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    To play devil's advocate, an issue arises when there AREN'T more verifiable sources. If someone makes an outlandish claim like "Billy Joel used to wash his ass with crisco" and cites a dubious interview, it's hard to find a source that definitively states Billy Joel DIDN'T wash his ass with crisco. Even worse, is if there was an actual, verified instance of one time where Billy Joel washed his ass with crisco. That may have been the only time he ever did it, and it may have been done as a joke or something like that, but now we have an interview saying he did it regularly, and an example of when he did. Now it's a lot harder to disprove.

    I feel gross defending Republican talking points, now I need to go take a shower. Maybe wash my ass with crisco.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    That sounds like a generic issue one should expect. I wouldn't consider this a specific party's talking point until they suggest a solution that isn't just better reasoning, better logic, better evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    There’s no problem in citing in that an interview cited fact X. Then if the issue is discussed, some other reputable news sources might say it’s likely not true and you can source them too.

    When you present the facts as they are instead of trying to portray them as absolute truths, you’re doing the right work for Wikipedia.

    Even scientific facts aren’t “the truth”, but our current understanding of things. Wikipedia isn’t about what’s the ultimate truth, it’s about documenting and organizing information so that people can get a grasp on subjects.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Republicans call anything that does not align with their billionaire funded think tanks and knockoff media sources fake or lying. I mean they literally replaced AP with some knockoff bullshit media source for the White House. You think this is about verifiable sources?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    I know a lot of private companies with bias.... WTF

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    These assholes are a drain on society.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Even if it was biased: so fucking what? Freedom of speech means they can do jack shit about that anyway.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Anything that does not fall in line with our propaganda machine is biased or lying!!

  • source
  • [+] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Science and history also has a bias that being people like them are wrong

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    No they aren't. House republicans can't read. They will just say it's biased and try to force it further right from wherever it currently is without checking.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Do as I say, not as I do!

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    They are just trying to annoy people and micromanage any left leaning or non partisan organization so they give up and just submit to the nazi's.

    Don't do it, nothing good comes from giving the nazi's what they want.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Good thing they have all the millions of more important things solved than Wikipedia 😡

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    What law does that break?

    Edit: Hey downvoter. If you aren't stalking why don't you include a comment on how you think having a bias is in anyway illegal.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    This is slop. Not necessarily AI generated, but definitely dumbass-generated.

    Literally not one ounce of effort. No digging into vague studies Republicans are talking about. No overview of Wikipedia's current policy. No questions posed to someone who knows about Wikipedia and/or government attempts to control the narrative.

    It's not even a good thing that the article only tells you the core facts. Too much goes unsaid. No context might as well be a hallucination from an AI for how much it bridges the gap between what you think and what reality contains.

  • source
  • [+] -22 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Wikipedia is not accepted by colleges as a reliable source to cite. When you are writing a paper/essay. That should tell you that it isn’t a reliable source for information.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It's true that it is not generally accepted for writing a paper or essay, but that does not mean that the information is completely unreliable. While I'm sure that Wikipedia is not perfect with regards to truth, it is more accessible, democratized and readable than many primary sources or peer reviewed articles. Those properties have a lot of value by themselves. Would you not agree?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I mean it is comparative to someone saying everything on lemmy is correct because people believe it true. Wiki is a open source so anyone can add to it. Anyone with. Strong opinion or faulty information. Basically just a collection of open source info without regulations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Nothing stopped someone writing a bogus paper claiming an MMR vaccine causes autism. It being a paper likely gave it undue credit to people who were convinced by it, not that they read it..

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Right and we also use lemmy, but we still weigh and judge what we read here or at least we should. And we should do the same for Wikipedia, even though I would argue that Wikipedia has higher epistemic standards than Lemmy. The point being, the openness of these platforms is a quality on its own. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it is far from terrible.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    That's ridiculous. It's not allowed because it's not a primary source of information. It's a great jumping off point for knowledge and if you need to cite something you can just look through its sources at the bottom of each page.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -22 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I don’t make the rules for NY colleges.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago

    Their point is that you don't understand why you can't cite any encyclopedia, not just Wikipedia.

    It has nothing to do with the reliability, you just need to cite their source (the primary source) instead of citing the middle man.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I'm not writing a paper or essay.. so my standards are different.

    Conversely I've tried following a paper to implement an algorithm and suddenly found it used math terms that I couldn't find an explanation for (and unlike the rest of the paper it didn't elaborate shit).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    I'm not writing a paper or essay.. so my standards are different.

    It actually shouldn’t matter in this case. Wikipedia isn’t a “source” of anything, it simply states facts and backs them with sources (though not always, many articles will have a “missing source” for many paragraphs). It’s also public, so anyone can add things without it being peer reviewed.

    So if you actually care about whether some information is correct, you should check what is the source. And if something is wrong you can do your part and change the text to be more neutral or better phrased. Edits that improve pages are almost always gonna stick.

    In the end it’s all ant’s work to update/fix the huge number of badly written stuff in there.

  • source
  • parent
  • 16 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 38 points 1 year ago

    Reality is biased against conservatives since they operate like 5 year olds.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I remember a time when telling the truth wasn't considered bias by the Republican party. It was the same time when, "conservative speech" didn't mean lies, misinformation, and hate speech.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Was that in the Eisenhower years?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Political persecution

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    "House Republican are fucking idiots who don't understand how user submitted contributions work"

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    They went to unmask the editors so they can send their cult followers to harass them. They would love if it turned violent too, because the goal is to silence opposition and make them submit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago
    [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    At one point does Conservapedia become the officially sanctioned North Korean American State-approved source of all information?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Trump is already trying to replace PBS with PragerU, so yes, they will do the same to Wikipedia. They are already learning a thing or two from their compadres Orban in Hungary and PiS in Poland on manipulating media and sources of information to brainwash the masses.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    So what if they are bias? They have that right.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Do conservatives like to be lumped in with morons and children? I don’t get why they’re proud to be ignorant.

  • source
  • 5 comments in c/technology@lemmy.zip view that post
    [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I remember a time when telling the truth wasn't considered bias by the Republican party. It was the same time when, "conservative speech" didn't mean lies, misinformation, and hate speech.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Sounds like a good time to download a local backup, before they inevitably pressure Wikipedia.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 3 comments in c/world view that post
    [–] 13 points 1 year ago*

    "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

    - Stephen Colbert

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I remember a time when telling the truth wasn't considered bias by the Republican party. It was the same time when, "conservative speech" didn't mean lies, misinformation, and hate speech.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Wikipedia isn't a public institution. They can be biased like cracker barrel or a bakery

  • source