5 ms·
Wikipedia has a very clear pro-science and pro-reality bias, and that's a good thing. You would not want news like OAN to be cited on their.
by exadrid 4y ago
Wikipedia has a very clear pro-science and pro-reality bias, and that's a good thing. You would not want news like OAN to be cited on their.
- coffeeblack 4y agoThe problem is that the news sources that Wp trusts have gone completely bananas over the past decade.
- tomrod 4y agoCitation, please.
- vanattab 4y agoJust ask anyone over 40...
- phdelightful 4y agoI wish those people over 40 hadn't put a US government in place that abolished the fairness doctrine. Then our news sources would probably not be so bananas.
- andsoitis 4y ago> IRC, as an example, Newsweek lost its trusted status Precisely, it lost its trusted status, but the GP posts that WP trusts publications that have gone bananas. So your example speaks in favor of Wikipedia's reliability.
- tomrod 4y agoThat is not a citation. It's an appeal to generational bias, and fails miserably. Please provide an appropriate citation.
- specialist 4y agoIIRC, as an example, Newsweek lost its trusted status as it adopted a news tabloid format. Further, they no longer have fact checkers and do not print corrections. Surely that's a disqualification right there. Though I don't see that specific criteria listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines FWIW, here's Wikipedia's roundup of sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
- tomrod 4y agoIf a news source loses reliability and wiki no longer uses it, how does that support the claim that wiki sources are bad?
- headsoup 4y agoDepends if it's true though, right? Let's not dismiss everything because culture wars.
- squeaky-clean 4y agoIf it's true there's probably a less controversial source that reported on it. If a controversial source is the only place to report on something, it's probably not true.
- headsoup 4y agoAnd the 'non-controversial' sources post only truth then? This is really un-critical logic being applied to news consumption.
- ars 4y agoYou clearly don't edit much of Wikipedia if you think that. Their bias actually toward things that are in the news. And since the news of today is only interested in the most extreme, that's the facts you'll find on Wikipedia. Truthfully a much worse problem is that an average user cannot edit on Wikipedia. To edit on Wikipedia you need to have an obsessive personality, to constantly guard your edits and keep other editors from removing them. And that bias is much worse than any other, you'll find a ton of information on matters that attract obsessive personalities, and much less on more normal subjects.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago> Truthfully a much worse problem is that an average user cannot edit on Wikipedia. To edit on Wikipedia you need to have an obsessive personality, to constantly guard your edits and keep other editors from removing them. This reads like something coming from the obsessive side.
- ars 4y agoI don't have patience to do any of that, and I'm mostly just gave up on editing Wikipedia. Every once in awhile I go to try to edit something and I'm reminded again how time-consuming it is.