Hell no. Wikipedia is the last untainted place of the internet
Some parts of wikipedia are biased as fuck... specially the ones covering politics of populist countries. There are armies of tankies bending reality to their likes and needs.
Then find a good source and fix them
Exactly. There was a page for the Jacobin founder that was missing a controversy over what he said about the Tsar's children, but my edit that added it in was ultimately removed -- and I totally understand why. I remember when it happened at the time, but when I looked for actual proof and sources, the only things I could find were very weak. The tweets had been deleted and only one had been dubiously archived.
Long story short, I had no evidence to back it up, even though I know I saw it. And that's just how the cookie crumbles. If there isn't a good source, even for something that did happen, it isn't admissible. I can't expect someone to take me at my word only, and I respect that Wikipedia doesn't let that fly.
Hahahaha, oh wow.... Wikipedia is so biased on some topics that heads are spinning while reading some pages.
Do you have an example? Just curious.
Personally I'd rather have crowd sourced bias than the bias of one really rich dude anyways.
or we can have no bias at all. But you do you.
I mean, good luck with that. It's near enough impossible to completely remove bias from any source of information... I think Wikipedia does a fairly good job, honestly, and the talk pages mean you can see different perspectives fairly openly.
A lot of ex-communist east european countries history is biased as fuck. But I agree with you, I don't think Musk buying Wikipedia would benefit it in any way. Although how much of "crowd" bias is there now is arguable as a lot of them are probably a part of some NGO or something...
Do you have a source to back this up?
And can you send this source to Wikipedia so they can update their pages since they strive for NPOS?
They are clearly not as biassed as you claim they are.
Not just NGOs, many groups are also involved in information warefare. This is a result of Wikipedia's poor policies that favor profits more than its purpose.
Yeah, it's not perfect and there is some drama but it's still amazing and one of the few remaining pieces from the dream many of us had for the Internet before almost everything else sold out.
Hell no. Wikipedia is the last untainted place of the internet
Some parts of wikipedia are biased as fuck... specially the ones covering politics of populist countries. There are armies of tankies bending reality to their likes and needs.
Then find a good source and fix them
Exactly. There was a page for the Jacobin founder that was missing a controversy over what he said about the Tsar's children, but my edit that added it in was ultimately removed -- and I totally understand why. I remember when it happened at the time, but when I looked for actual proof and sources, the only things I could find were very weak. The tweets had been deleted and only one had been dubiously archived.
Long story short, I had no evidence to back it up, even though I know I saw it. And that's just how the cookie crumbles. If there isn't a good source, even for something that did happen, it isn't admissible. I can't expect someone to take me at my word only, and I respect that Wikipedia doesn't let that fly.
Hahahaha, oh wow.... Wikipedia is so biased on some topics that heads are spinning while reading some pages.
Do you have an example? Just curious.
Personally I'd rather have crowd sourced bias than the bias of one really rich dude anyways.
or we can have no bias at all. But you do you.
I mean, good luck with that. It's near enough impossible to completely remove bias from any source of information... I think Wikipedia does a fairly good job, honestly, and the talk pages mean you can see different perspectives fairly openly.
A lot of ex-communist east european countries history is biased as fuck. But I agree with you, I don't think Musk buying Wikipedia would benefit it in any way. Although how much of "crowd" bias is there now is arguable as a lot of them are probably a part of some NGO or something...
Do you have a source to back this up?
And can you send this source to Wikipedia so they can update their pages since they strive for NPOS?
They are clearly not as biassed as you claim they are.
Not just NGOs, many groups are also involved in information warefare. This is a result of Wikipedia's poor policies that favor profits more than its purpose.
Yeah, it's not perfect and there is some drama but it's still amazing and one of the few remaining pieces from the dream many of us had for the Internet before almost everything else sold out.
[citation needed]