Wikipedia co-founder on bias

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

Even the co-founder of Wikipedia (Larry Sanger) admits that Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point of View) is long dead and forgotten. He used examples such as:

  • Obama's article fails to list all the scandals, and Hillary's is spun heavily, while Trump's had 5,224 unflattering words and listed many debunked scandals.
  • Their abortion article says things like, "When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine".
  • Lies of omission on negative consequences of drug legalization policies, totally pro-LGBT adoption policies, their article on historical Jesus has many opinions as fact, and their pro-Vaccine position or Global warming omits or discounts the opposing views.


Of course this lack of balance doesn't matter to progressives; they believe that their narratives is not only the most valid one, but often the only valid one. While those with a little more worldly cultural breadth and that live or at least visit outside the left's provincial enclaves, know better.

GeekPirate.small.png

📚 References

Wikipedia

Wikipedia.png
Wikipedia is both hit and miss, with a lot more hits than misses. I reference it a lot, because most articles are pretty good, or at least good enough. Most of their lies and bias are lies and bias of omission. (What they say isn't usually wrong, but what they don't say might completely change the context). So they are a pretty good reference. But don't let that lull you into an "Appeal to Authority" or "Appeal to Celebrity" fallacy. Science is skepticism. Wikipedia is hegemony. Wikipedia has millions of articles, across hundreds of thousands of topics -- and each topic is a community (clique) of editors, and herd-think rules most of them. Some areas a fine. But if one clique is bad, that whole area can be bad; they won't allow counter-factual that disagree with their agenda. And there are bad (biased) areas of wikipedia. Especially in History, Science, Politics, and anything that's controversial. And everything can be political and controversial to folks that focus on any topic.

Fake Facts

There's "facts" that people believe, but aren't. Worse are things that the Fact Checkers on the left have verified for people as true, that aren't true, or are completely biased or misleading. Most are sincerely mislead. The question is when confronted with facts do they argue to death using an appeal to authority fallacy ("but CNN says it's true"), or are they open-minded free thinkers that look at the new information and weigh it against the prior evidence? It's not wether they agree with me or not that changes who they are. (They might have valid reasons for still not agreeing). But it's their approach to new information that makes the difference between a conscious (self-aware) human, or a herd following collectivist.