Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:41 pm
You would not believe the tactics the Wikipedians are using to keep the following two sentences out of Wikipedia. Or maybe you would......
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ost&wpmm=1
I think my favourites is the way the Wikipediots are trying to perform their own analysis to debunk/discredit the source, which is of course forbidden (and extremely hilarious when shitbird Volunteer Marek is on scene, stating "We stick to facts and sources").
Second favourite is Drmies saying this.....
Administrator Drmies of course had nothing to say about the impermissible nature of the analysis going on just above his own comment. Nor has he done anything about the edit warring, JesseRafe having reverted three different editors to prevent this content from being part of Wikipedia's settled reality. Their one and only contribution to the talk page has been to speak as much about his opponents as the merits of the disputed content.
Anyone who thinks Wikipedia doesn't have a massive bias problem, really needs to explain stuff like this. Because it happens all day, every day. And Wikipedia's Administrators, Drmies being one of their most trusted and respected, aren't policing it or preventing it, they are active facilitators of it.
In 2018, during the first debate betweeen O'Rourke and Ted Cruz, O'Rourke claimed that he had not tried to leave the scene of the drunk driving accident. His claim was rated as false by The Washington Post's fact checker, Glenn Kessler, who found that police reports from the incident corroborated the fact that O'Rourke had attempted to leave the scene.[115]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ost&wpmm=1
I think my favourites is the way the Wikipediots are trying to perform their own analysis to debunk/discredit the source, which is of course forbidden (and extremely hilarious when shitbird Volunteer Marek is on scene, stating "We stick to facts and sources").
Second favourite is Drmies saying this.....
This is the same Drmies whose mantra in every other case is that if reliable sources see fit to mention something, that is evidence of significance. This is the highest level of source choosing to devote an entire analysis to this one apparently false claim, even though it harms a candidate they presumably want to succeed.there is mention of the accident, of course, and it might fit there--but that's a matter of discussion, and what needs to be discusses is if one mention by one fact-checker about one statement of his about something from decades ago is worth mentioning there.
Administrator Drmies of course had nothing to say about the impermissible nature of the analysis going on just above his own comment. Nor has he done anything about the edit warring, JesseRafe having reverted three different editors to prevent this content from being part of Wikipedia's settled reality. Their one and only contribution to the talk page has been to speak as much about his opponents as the merits of the disputed content.
Anyone who thinks Wikipedia doesn't have a massive bias problem, really needs to explain stuff like this. Because it happens all day, every day. And Wikipedia's Administrators, Drmies being one of their most trusted and respected, aren't policing it or preventing it, they are active facilitators of it.