Wikipedia Co-Founder: Site’s Neutrality Is ‘Dead’ Thanks to Leftist Bias

originally posted by: network dude
and everyone who looked at that Wiki page for proof went back and verified all the facts remained several days later, as all here at ATS do diligently. I mean, who doesn't do that?

Well, the text itself aren't the 'facts', you need to check the footnotes.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Part of that problem is the huge liberal bias in what are supposed to be 'reliable' sources. I can't tell you how many times I saw 'reliable' sources make the claim Trump called white supremacists fine people...

What do you want me to tell you, dude, I don't know how many times I can say 'check the footnotes' so I'll say 'check the footnotes' again.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: gortex

That's a great question, why are you being defensive over a simple observation unrelated to your personal opinions?

Because you seem to think I was inferring Infobitt was "impervious to the same unethical influences that allegedly plague Wikipedia" , which I did not.

Seems to me Sanger is a Right wing Trump supporter (he voted for Trump) who's playing to Trump supporters who hate Wiki because it suits his agenda against Wiki.
Sanger voting Trump

That's the reason I posted "Critical thinking is a good thing , but it cuts both ways" at the bottom because there's an obvious agenda at play.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
and everyone who looked at that Wiki page for proof went back and verified all the facts remained several days later, as all here at ATS do diligently. I mean, who doesn't do that?

Well, the text itself aren't the 'facts', you need to check the footnotes.

if that's how you roll, roll on. I will just assume Wiki is only as good as the last edit, and not use to for official sourcing of anything. I've changed a page to make a point of how inaccurate it is. And I honestly don't know much about anything. So to have me edit Wiki is asking for trouble. At least trusting my edit sure is.

originally posted by: network dude
if that's how you roll, roll on. I will just assume Wiki is only as good as the last edit, and not use to for official sourcing of anything.

I think the sourcing can be quite good, I always check the footnotes to see where they obtained the data or comments and then go to that source myself to verify. It's just a matter of clicking a few links to get there.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
if that's how you roll, roll on. I will just assume Wiki is only as good as the last edit, and not use to for official sourcing of anything.

I think the sourcing can be quite good, I always check the footnotes to see where they obtained the data or comments and then go to that source myself to verify. It's just a matter of clicking a few links to get there.

That's just common sense. Or maybe it isn't but should be.

originally posted by: Athetos
I don’t believe they mention the pallet of cash payed to terrorists on Berrys page.

a reply to: TXRabbit

Then add it..thats how it works. It was their money they got back anyway.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Phony is in the eye of the beholder on Wiki. Whichever group is most numerous and most dedicated will "win". I don't know about you, but I don't think I am going to hawk articles on Wiki just waiting to re-edit things.

Wikipedia is a good starting point. However, people should not take it as gospel. I don't take anything as gospel. I like to see source data and come to .y own conclusions.

If I see a story in NYTs i check other papers I know may be more conservative for their assessment. I also cross reference more right leaning stories too so I don't take Fox's word either.

In fact, I find people who aren't journalists to be far more reliable.

a reply to: ketsuko

That statement applies to any compliation of observations and sources you would care to name.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Phony is in the eye of the beholder on Wiki.

Footnotes. Read them.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ketsuko
Phony is in the eye of the beholder on Wiki.

Footnotes. Read them.

Most people won't do their own due diligence and believe journalist are objective. If the source is an official looking g website like Wikipedia they assume it is factual. This is what makes the bias so insidious.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: pteridine

Go ahead and demonstrate the factual inaccuracy of provided sources then. Being skeptical is not enough to dismiss credible publications.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: pravdaseeker

So to the few who still think Wikipedia is such a great website, I urge extreme caution.... and lots of critical thinking.

Sanger has been saying this stuff for years , he's also started rival sites over the years to take on Wikipedia but none have caught the Net's attention.
From 2014.

To rid the public of this type of problem, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger made Infobitt, a free, open content news resource he’s calling “Wikipedia for the news.” No, it’s not Wikinews; this site grabs facts from news sources, summarizes them and organizes the information to make it a news go-to. Like our beloved online encyclopedia, Infobitt is a collaborative effort.
observer.com...

Larry Sanger's Breitbart articles.
www.breitbart.com...#

Critical thinking is a good thing , but it cuts both ways.

Because Infobitt is impervious to the same unethical influences that allegedly plague Wikipedia, right?

You're trolling Gortex now?

Hilarious.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Most people won't do their own due diligence and believe journalist are objective.

Oh, well, that's how ignorance remains so pervasive. People just want to get worked up about something that if they spent a couple minutes digging into they'd find the answers they needed to find.

Horse, water and all that.

a reply to: Edumakated

People don't even seem to need an official looking source. Seems like a lot of people have somehow forgotten the internet is a place where any asshole can write literally anything they want. People seem to have a strange misconception that if they see something written down somewhere on the internet, it's gotta be true.

Really don't understand what the #'s happened to people to be honest. What happened to the time when everyone understood literally everything on the internet was likely at least 90% bull#?

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: Edumakated

People don't even seem to need an official looking source. Seems like a lot of people have somehow forgotten the internet is a place where any asshole can write literally anything they want. People seem to have a strange misconception that if they see something written down somewhere on the internet, it's gotta be true.

Really don't understand what the #'s happened to people to be honest. What happened to the time when everyone understood literally everything on the internet was likely at least 90% bull#?

It isn't just internet. Any news, statement, policy claim should be investigated. It is like when MSM kept saying Trump said racist on both sides and no one bothers to read entire quote.

Statements about gun violence, hate crimes, immigration. All kinds of topics. No one just does their own due diligence and takes anything presented as gospel.

a reply to: Edumakated

It isn't just internet. Any news, statement, policy claim should be investigated. It is like when MSM kept saying Trump said racist on both sides and no one bothers to read entire quote.

While I agree with you, that's nothing new. People have been blindly listening to the talking heads at news agencies for a long long time.

Statements about gun violence, hate crimes, immigration. All kinds of topics. No one just does their own due diligence and takes anything presented as gospel.

That's because in the end, most people don't actually have much of an opinion on or really care about such things because such things don't actually affect many people's lives directly, or at least in their mind it doesn't. They repeat popular opinion because it's what they're told to support or repeat, then immediately stop thinking about it until the next time they're told what opinion to have.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Part of that problem is the huge liberal bias in what are supposed to be 'reliable' sources. I can't tell you how many times I saw 'reliable' sources make the claim Trump called white supremacists fine people...

What do you want me to tell you, dude, I don't know how many times I can say 'check the footnotes' so I'll say 'check the footnotes' again.

The footnotes will say CNN, WaPo, and the NYT are our sources. And they are accurately quoting those 'reliable' sources. The problem is what once upon a time used to be reliable sources are now merely political propaganda outlets that are willing to lie to further their agenda.

'Fake news media is the enemy of the American people'.

'Check the footnotes...check the footnotes...check the footnotes!' Gawd, sounds like a broken record in here! I'm pretty sure most got it the first (four) times.

So what about the footnotes??? I check them, but when 9 out of 10 of those precious footnotes lead to some heavily biased source then what's the point? Plus, nearly half the time the links are broken, the article no longer exists or there's a pay-wall. Are these things a violation? Probably, but no one seems to do a lot about it, particularly on the left when editing their own.

Yay...checked the footnotes!

I go to Wikipedia for laughs when it comes to politics. It's actually comical to see how far left they're skewed! Just goes to show you what all that liberal indoctrination in the education system is doing!! Wikipedia is about the most woke-correct source I can think of.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The footnotes will say CNN, WaPo, and the NYT are our sources.

Do you have to accept them? That's rhetorical. Also, who are they citing in the article? Do you bother checking that too?

It's like no one can think for themselves anymore.


AND CHECK THE FOOTNOTES!

edit on 8-6-2021 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude has no beer