Re: Wikipedia's political biases
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2023 10:21 pm
I wouldn't consider them "far-left" per se, but they are very left-leaning. They don't even have reliable sources be conservative news outlets, such as Fox News anymore.
BADSITEBADSITEBADSITE
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2191
I wouldn't say they have a left-wing bias. A socially progressive one, sure. But economically? Center at best. Americans have been led to believe that "the left" is progressive neoliberals because there is no actual left-wing movement in this country.StephenBryant7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 10:21 pmI wouldn't consider them "far-left" per se, but they are very left-leaning. They don't even have reliable sources be conservative news outlets, such as Fox News anymore.
This is one of the reasons the dismissive attitude of "anyone can edit it" used in response to complaints about the quality of, or bias in, articles is nonsense. Wikipedia as a matter of its policy standards engages in favoritism toward liberal news outlets. It's true some of the further-left sites can't be cited under most circumstances, but I don't agree with that either. Different news sites with different editorial lines report on different things and different details others may ignore, usually intentionally; they may also be dishonest no matter what alleged reputation for good reporting they have.StephenBryant7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 10:21 pmI wouldn't consider them "far-left" per se, but they are very left-leaning. They don't even have reliable sources be conservative news outlets, such as Fox News anymore.
Agreed. WP is biased by the nuts who achieved adminship, but it's a more complicated and nuanced mess than simple socialist-left beliefs. More to the point: Wikipedia fanatics will deny all of this and shriek that anyone bringing it up is a "conspiracy theorist".Cla68 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 1:25 pmThe current political establishment situation, which Wikipedia generally tries to support, is a little more complicated than basic left wing vs right wing. It seems to mainly be a bunch of affluent elitists and globalists using whatever political tactic or ideology that they think will work to help them establish and maintain control. Right now it consists of mainly left wing tropes, but not completely.
Because both Wales and Sanger had a pro-authoritarian bent with the added "spice" of libertarianism. Such people want to be the authorities, not merely in favor of them. Wales won, pushed Sanger out---and then started installing suck-ups who would support his idiotic reign as "king of wiki". Which is slowly coming to an end, as the suck-ups he originally installed turn on him, quit in disgust, or simply die off. If they are "replaced" (and often aren't), the replacements tend to be patrollers who don't give a shit about political issues or biasing anything--they just get their rocks off deleting and banning. The content that isn't deleted usually stays broken and biased.So, why does Wikipedia currently mainly attract drones and NPCs who dedicate almost all their waking hours to promote the establishment line rather than anti-authoritarian, free-thinking, independent, creative, rebels?
Done.ericbarbour wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 7:32 pmPerhaps this should be merged with an existing thread.
https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... =34&t=2191
They want addictive power since Wikipedia is held by so many to be the altar of history, although that changed a bit last month with the launch of alternative Justapedia.Philomath wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 4:12 amA conspiracy theory, to the average Wikipedian, is whatever they are told is a conspiracy theory by the 'reliable sources'. Are you folks aware of the wiki-slogan "Verifiability is truth"? That may be the winner of the most Orwellian sentence I've ever seen someone write unironically on the internet.
The more I analyze the situation on Wikipedia, the more I come to see that the administrative bureaucracy is held up by several thousand worker drones. Like the aptly named Dronebogus. They aren't paid actors, or products of government intelligence services. But they're un-witting, willing tools and useful idiots. Why do these drones flock to Wikipedia?