| ▲ | SkinTaco an hour ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | jfengel an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| If you think that's bad, you should compare the pages for Genghis Khan and Mr. Rogers. |
| |
| ▲ | SkinTaco an hour ago | parent [-] | | You should've checked the page for genghis khan first, it's actually very neutral lol. Which is the point I'm making - it's possible to write unbiased articles about bad people. Wikipedia just isn't doing that for modern-day politicians. Which is fine! But not unbiased. | | |
| ▲ | ryoshu an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | If Ghengis Khan was raping & pillaging in 2026 his Wikipedia article might have a more modern slant. | | | |
| ▲ | faidit 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | How is the Trump or Obama article not neutral? You can literally correct them yourself if there is anything untrue or biased. | | |
| ▲ | appreciatorBus 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | You could correct them but the admins responsible for the slant will just revert them or debate you until you give up. https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/how-wikipedia-whitewashe... | |
| ▲ | nekzn 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | It all boils down to whatever adjectives you can use or not. You can say some politician is a racist in the first paragraphs of their Wikipedia article, but you can’t say some politician filled a country with immigrants from the third world. That implies a bias, because one thing is seen by the editors as damning enough to warrant a mention whilst the other isn’t, despite both things being considered somewhat equally bad by different sides of the political aisle. (I know the answers to this comment will be “oh but it’s not the same…”. Spare me. You missed the point of my comment.) | | |
| ▲ | hackyhacky 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > you can’t say some politician filled a country with immigrants from the third world. You can absolutely say that, if it's true. As it stands, I don't know of country "filled with immigrants", so it's possible your edits are getting revoked for being incendiary hyperbole. I'm also not aware of any politician described as racist in the first paragraph of their article. Can you indicate who you have in mind? More realistically, controversies about racism and immigration are likely to be mentioned in a section of the given article, not in the first paragraph. That strikes me as a very fair way to handle it, which conveniently disarms accusations of bias against Wikipedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | pesus an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Have you considered the differences are because those are different people who have done much different things? I don't see a strong slant either way in these articles. |
| |
| ▲ | SkinTaco an hour ago | parent [-] | | Agreeing with the negative portrayal does not make it an unbiased article. | | |
| ▲ | louisbourgault 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | If you think about the most salient or well covered things by the news in each of their presidencies, they're right there in the header. I'd say it's difficult to write in an unbiased sense about these issues, and given the difficulty, Wikipedia has done a decent job. | |
| ▲ | pesus an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | What exactly do you see as a "negative portrayal"? And disagreeing with the supposed "negative portrayal" or disapproving/approving of the actions of one does not make an article biased. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | amandare an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm not seeing what's biased about Donald Trump's article? It's all accurate info citing legal cases where he was literally convicted of things. A president being convicted of the things he's been convicted of is the story. Not mentioning it in the intro and elsewhere would be biased. Your issue seems to be not with "bias" but with how topicality of Donald Trump's actions require them to be prominent within an encyclopedia entry. Which has nothing to do with bias of the editors. |
|
| ▲ | dgacmu an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is sometimes said that reality has a liberal bias. But it is literally the case that historians rank these two presidents at nearly opposite ends of the spectrum, and the article's tone seems to reflect that. Which isn't really an example of bias in Wikipedia - it is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. |
| |
| ▲ | stogot an hour ago | parent [-] | | OP’s chosen example was terrible. I’d agree with the premise, based anecdotoly but what a terrible selection of articles to prove a point. Better to link the discussion articles where the editors actively slant the articles People become more conservative as they age, so maybe the reality quote is about the young and the young edit Wikipedia more | | |
| ▲ | kenlefeb 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think people become more conservative as they get wealthier. Getting older just correlates with increasing wealth. | | |
| ▲ | stirfish 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think it's more about the way things are vs the way things "should" be. e.g "teens are going to experiment with sex, so comprehensive sex education is the best way to keep them safe" vs "Teens should not have sex, so abstinence-only education is the best way to keep them safe" |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | RC_ITR an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is an extremely weak argument to just post the links. Please supply actual instances of the supposed bias. |
|
| ▲ | 20after4 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Reality has a well known liberal bias¹ - Steven Colbert 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reality_has_a_well_known_lib... |
| |
| ▲ | __david__ 17 minutes ago | parent [-] | | From his 2006 speech/routine at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, speaking to then president George Bush: > Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in reality. And reality has a well-known liberal bias... His whole thing was phenomenal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ-a2KeyCAY |
|
|
| ▲ | snvzz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you think these are biased, have a load of this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate https://grokipedia.com/page/Gamergate |
|
| ▲ | mulmen an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | Klonoar an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
