Larry lectures us again

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
Post Reply
User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Larry lectures us again

Post by ericbarbour » Thu May 21, 2020 3:40 am

https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikiped ... ly-biased/

He's basically correct about all this. (I wonder if his post was shared on IRC channels and the resident nerds started calling him a "fascist" and an "antisemite" and a "gay-basher" or such. Would be expected from that crowd. Wikipedia is usually a VERY predictable community--and predictably dishonest about it.)

User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 685
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: Larry lectures us again

Post by Strelnikov » Thu May 21, 2020 8:16 pm

You can't be "encyclopedically neutral" on an ongoing story, especially an American presidency, when any rando can edit the "encyclopedia." That is why there should be a "two year edit block" rule on articles about sitting heads of state, to keep the drama down. Meanwhile, Art Madrid is still Mayor of La Mesa, California, even after my blog post. Fix it, Jimbo - it's only been six years!!
.....Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good. The only scandals that I could find that were mentioned were a few that the left finds at least a little scandalous, such as Snowden’s revelations about NSA activities under Obama. In short, the article is almost a total whitewash.
When did Sanger become the right-leaning centrist? Obama ran the country on Republican lines - we never got a second New Deal out of the economic collapse, and none of the bankers responsible were tried, then taken out and shot as what should have happened. The actual scandal was that Obama became the Drone President, firing air-to-ground Hellfire missiles at Afghan wedding parties and allowing the idiot war between the Houthis and the Saudis in Yemen to rage out of control. Absolutely, all of these "scandals" he lists should be in the Obama BLP but he doesn't say a word that a lot of the issues he brings up were hyped endlessly on AM radio, and that the conservative rant-o-sphere (the blogs, the sites, the op-ed pages of certain newspapers) suffered from total obsession over Barack Obama.

I understand why Sanger used the examples he used, but he gave himself away in the comments section:

James
May 21, 2020, 8:50 AM
Your point about ‘bias’ against Trump is not taking into account that someone can say demonstrably false things, which is why it mentions false so many times. In addition, even the bible contradicts its self (let alone the testaments), which is why Jesus’ story was deemed as confusing. Just because someone takes offense to what is a pretty unbiased view does not mean its false.

With your example of MMR and global warming articles – presenting false information is not neutrality. Of course like with journalism and most encyclopedias you will have bias with the currently available information, which you will find is funded by the ‘establishment’. This research is later verified and reviewed and adopted. In addition your claim of not presenting the view is false. This is covered inside of the ‘public opinion’ articles on global warming which covers the other side. Unfortunately (believe me I’d love global warming to be a hoax) its just that – opinion, and flawed studies funded by the ‘establishment’.

This article feels like its blowing smoke and shouting fire.



Larry Sanger
May 21, 2020, 10:17 AM
James, it is your opinion that Trump has said many “demonstrably false things.” Many others deny that you can demonstrate this. Hence, if you write an article about a politician according to which you can easily tell that it was written by those who oppose him, the article is biased against the politician.

Similarly, it is your opinion that the Bible contradicts itself (so spelled). There are many Christians and theologians who disagree, who maintain that apparent contradictions are due to failures of correct interpretation and contextualization. (I happen to think they’re probably right on that, by the way.) (My bolding.)

Now, you can disagree about what the facts are, and you can maintain that the facts are demonstrable. But you cannot also maintain that stating those alleged facts without attribution, and in a way that discounts other common views, is neutral. Rather, you are forced to the conclusion that you oppose neutrality as a policy for encyclopedias. That is your prerogative, but it has been Wikipedia’s explicit policy from the beginning (as I can tell you, since I wrote the policy).
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

User avatar
Carrite
Sucks Critic
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:59 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Larry lectures us again

Post by Carrite » Mon May 25, 2020 2:32 am

Strelnikov wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 8:16 pm
When did Sanger become the right-leaning centrist conspiracy-leaning rightist? Obama ran the country on Republican lines - we never got a second New Deal out of the economic collapse, and none of the bankers responsible were tried, then taken out and shot as what should have happened. The actual scandal was that Obama became the Drone President, firing air-to-ground Hellfire missiles at Afghan wedding parties and allowing the idiot war between the Houthis and the Saudis in Yemen to rage out of control. Absolutely, all of these "scandals" he lists should be in the Obama BLP but he doesn't say a word that a lot of the issues he brings up were hyped endlessly on AM radio, and that the conservative rant-o-sphere (the blogs, the sites, the op-ed pages of certain newspapers) suffered from total obsession over Barack Obama.
FIFY.

t

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Re: Larry lectures us again

Post by ericbarbour » Mon May 25, 2020 7:37 pm

Strelnikov wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 8:16 pm
When did Sanger become the right-leaning centrist? Obama ran the country on Republican lines - we never got a second New Deal out of the economic collapse, and none of the bankers responsible were tried, then taken out and shot as what should have happened. The actual scandal was that Obama became the Drone President, firing air-to-ground Hellfire missiles at Afghan wedding parties and allowing the idiot war between the Houthis and the Saudis in Yemen to rage out of control. Absolutely, all of these "scandals" he lists should be in the Obama BLP but he doesn't say a word that a lot of the issues he brings up were hyped endlessly on AM radio, and that the conservative rant-o-sphere (the blogs, the sites, the op-ed pages of certain newspapers) suffered from total obsession over Barack Obama.
Sanger has always been like this. You seem to forget that he was "flirting" with libertarianism and trying to figure out Ayn Rand when he and Der Jimbo (one of the world's most fanatical Randites) first met online. Go back and read the book wiki material. Sanger never figured it out, but he did find himself being howled at by Wales on Usenet.....
"I wanted to say quickly here--I have long since lost patience to talk much about Rand's philosophy, since it is so sloppy and self-indulgent--that, in my experience, Wales was extremely well versed in Rand arcana. It's not correct to suppose that he was just a dabbler. He seriously studied the stuff back in the 90s. When I wrote a long "Objections to Objectivism" essay in about 1995 (putting flabby-minded Objectivist doctrines under an analytical philosophy microscope), Wales wrote one of the longest, meatiest replies. If you looked hard enough for them, you might be able to find both my original post and his reply. Possibly on the h.p.o. newsgroup."
also see this 2011 WR thread
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s= ... 35163&st=0

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Fan
Posts: 227
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Recent tweet

Post by CMAwatch » Wed May 27, 2020 2:34 pm

#BbbGate [+] [Bbb23 exposed]

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 47 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Re: Recent tweet

Post by ericbarbour » Fri May 29, 2020 12:29 am

lol:
Screenshot_2020-05-28 Larry Sanger on Twitter So, Wikipedia, when are you going to admit that you're no longer neutral You [...].png
Screenshot_2020-05-28 Larry Sanger on Twitter So, Wikipedia, when are you going to admit that you're no longer neutral You [...].png (29.8 KiB) Viewed 149 times
think he's talking about this
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =958564729

A large chunk of the Gender article was written in 2007-08 by the now-banned Alastair Haines, who was notorious for misogynistic and anti-Muslim writings. He was also suspected of being the infamous sockpuppet Shakehandsman, who did similar things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... air_Haines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... r_Haines_2
http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/11/14/ge ... wikipedia/

Post Reply