| ▲ | thiht 7 hours ago |
| Can't wait for the specific examples |
|
| ▲ | jyscao 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| What for? To start a flame war? No one is going to get convinced one way or the other. Which was why I just wanted to point out that while I think Wikipedia is a net good overall, it is not without blemishes. |
| |
| ▲ | chairhairair 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Makes claim. > Is asked for evidence. > Refuses. Brilliant work. These kinds of posts should be bannable. | | |
| ▲ | jyscao 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you do not know of a single Wikipedia article that you judge to be politically biased, then that says more about you and your gullibility than it does about me. | | |
| ▲ | chairhairair 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | The point is not that Wikipedia is completely unbiased. That's an obvious impossibility - for any encyclopedia. The point is that accusations of "noticeable bias on any topic that has political implications" is the kind of accusation made by someone simply trying to sow distrust in information, writ large. It's increasingly common. Being asked for an example or two isn't weird. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jaydz 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So many parroting the same "bias" line here, yet not a single example has been linked. |
|
| ▲ | lysace 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This kind of bias is a statistical measure; typically you can't prove or disprove it using a single sample. It's about larger patterns, which things are talked about and (crucially) which are not. How much attention is given to things and not. |
| |
| ▲ | thiht 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok, can’t wait for specific examples illustrating the larger patterns | | |
| ▲ | lysace 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Eh... this is a joke comment, right? | | |
| ▲ | thiht 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don’t know, is the "Wikipedia is left biased but I can’t produce a single piece of evidence" rhetoric a joke? |
|
|
|
