Most active commenters
  • fnikacevic(3)
  • PathOfEclipse(3)

←back to thread

Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

(www.theverge.com)
598 points leotravis10 | 18 comments | 04 Sep 25 15:30 UTC | HN request time: 0.623s | source | bottom
1. jandrusk ◴[04 Sep 25 19:47 UTC] No.45131470[source]▶
They’ve always have had a leftist bias like most of big tech.

https://x.com/therabbithole84/status/1957598712693452920?s=4...

replies(3): >>45131506 #>>45131510 #>>45132064 #
2. slater ◴[04 Sep 25 19:49 UTC] No.45131506[source]▶
aka, biased towards reality
replies(1): >>45132015 #
3. fnikacevic ◴[04 Sep 25 20:08 UTC] No.45131684{3}[source]▶
The only specific example from that nypost article is about Fox News not being allowed as a source. Fox news has been found in court to be guilty of defamation and has argued in court that it cannot be considered news, only entertainment.

So do you want reality or reality TV on Wikipedia? Should we consider Ancient Aliens as a source?

replies(2): >>45132037 #>>45132440 #
4. gdulli ◴[04 Sep 25 20:23 UTC] No.45131831{3}[source]▶
Larry Sanger literally does not understand what the concept of bias is. He has said: "you aligned yourself with one side, against another side, in a debate. That makes you biased, not neutral."

He's so unable to engage with ideas he doesn't agree with that he's conflated having a stance with "bias".

replies(1): >>45132708 #
5. pityJuke ◴[04 Sep 25 20:45 UTC] No.45132015[source]▶
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?redirect=no&title=Reality_has_a_...
6. Clamchop ◴[04 Sep 25 20:48 UTC] No.45132037{4}[source]▶
Fox News argued in court that their political commentary programming isn't news. They didn't argue that none of their programming is news.
replies(2): >>45135936 #>>45150648 #
7. hulium ◴[04 Sep 25 20:54 UTC] No.45132064[source]▶
That's a fake Wikipedia screenshot! That line doesn't exist in the actual article and didn't at the time when that tweet was written, and does not even fit in the context. To me, this is at best an example for how much higher the quality is on Wikipedia than in average social media like X.
replies(2): >>45138084 #>>45138685 #
8. PathOfEclipse ◴[04 Sep 25 21:30 UTC] No.45132440{4}[source]▶
You're not trying very hard to see a side that's different from yours, are you? You are responding to a comment saying "leftist != realistic", yet you seem to be pretending my intent was to say "here's proof Wikipedia is left-leaning." Neither of my links were given to "prove" bias, either, only to show that accusations of leftwing bias are accusations that Wikipedia is valuing propaganda over truth and objectivity.

Anyways, to get off-topic from my original comment, here's some evidence for you to ignore:

https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-...

https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/is...

https://www.allsides.com/blog/wikipedia-biased

https://stophindudvesha.org/the-myth-of-wikipedias-neutralit...

replies(1): >>45150641 #
9. PathOfEclipse ◴[04 Sep 25 22:01 UTC] No.45132708{4}[source]▶
It sounds to me like you're just nitpicking his words. I can't find this quote anywhere, but he's probably saying Wikipedia is taking "stances", to use your word, on subjects where it should instead be trying harder to be neutral and provide multiple perspectives in a balanced manner. Sincerely trying to understand and convey the perspectives of two opposing sides looks vastly different from taking one side, amplifying their talking points, and suppressing or refuting those of the other side.

The counter-arguments to all this all tend to boil down to some form of condescending tone or moralizing:

* left-leaning is just reality-leaning. LoLoLoL right-wingers are sooo stupid!

* Wikipedia should take the left-leaning stance because it is good, moral, noble, and righteous, while the right-leaning stance is vile, evil, unconscionable, and despicable.

If either of those thoughts cross your mind, then, congratulations, you are left-biased. You should try your hand at Wikipedia article editing. I'm sure they'll love you.

replies(1): >>45132861 #
10. gdulli ◴[04 Sep 25 22:16 UTC] No.45132861{5}[source]▶
https://bsky.app/profile/curious-maga.bsky.social/post/3loel...

He first invents a link between a topic being "complex" with not being able to take a side. Then he conflates taking a side with "bias".

This is detached from reality. That is not nitpicking words. This is a word salad that starts with a need to dismiss a viewpoint and works backwards.

This "co-founder" was let go from Wikipedia in its first year over 20 years ago. He's had a crusade against them ever since.

11. rsynnott ◴[05 Sep 25 07:33 UTC] No.45135936{5}[source]▶
I mean, given how inclined they are to blur the lines, a certain amount of caution seems reasonable. They're a tabloid, essentially.
replies(1): >>45138526 #
12. BenjiWiebe ◴[05 Sep 25 13:06 UTC] No.45138084[source]▶
Amazing. And it's listed as having 23.7K views. I suppose far less than 1% of those people would have taken the time to see if that was real or fake.

EDIT That line did exist in the past. It was there one year ago. Can someone more skilled in Wikipedia find and link the revision where it was removed? Bonus points for finding when it was added. Thanks in advance.

13. PathOfEclipse ◴[05 Sep 25 13:46 UTC] No.45138526{6}[source]▶
It takes an incredible lack of awareness or intellectual honesty to hold Fox news to this standard, but not CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC, or, if we include print media, the NYT, the Washington Post, the Guardian, Reuters, AP, Axios, LA Times, and the Atlantic.
14. Agraillo ◴[05 Sep 25 13:59 UTC] No.45138685[source]▶
The edit did exist. So the phrase "Multiple studies have found a left-wing bias at Wikipedia" can be found last in the edit (4 February 2025) [1] and was removed by the editor Aquillion with the explanation [2]

     Not seeing anything in this source that supports this language; they summarize no other sources that I could see, and their own conclusions are more complex than this (as covered further down the article.)
I think that the one who previously introduced the phrase should have either not stated 'Multiple studies' or provided information about other studies. I suspect that a single research is usually not enough to be mentioned in an article

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_...

replies(1): >>45145138 #
15. hulium ◴[06 Sep 25 00:00 UTC] No.45145138{3}[source]▶
I am not surprised that the sentence existed once. But "Wikipedia once said this during the time August 2024-Februrary 2025" is not the same as "Source: Wikipedia" because of the way Wikipedia evolves. It's especially bad if you disregard the entire much more nuanced discussion in the remaining article.
16. fnikacevic ◴[06 Sep 25 16:26 UTC] No.45150641{5}[source]▶
Look if you'd rather trust Fox News than Wikipedia feel free. None of those 4 sources are much convincing of your point.
17. fnikacevic ◴[06 Sep 25 16:27 UTC] No.45150648{5}[source]▶
They defamed Dominion so much on their "news" programs that they have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars. Great "news" source.
replies(1): >>45152171 #
18. Clamchop ◴[06 Sep 25 19:27 UTC] No.45152171{6}[source]▶
I don't disagree that Fox News is problematic for lots of reasons and I also have personal grievances with how they and similar outlets have affected several members of my family. That said, it's become folk knowledge that Fox News doesn't even think they're news, but that's simply a misunderstanding of the case. There's a tiny bit of irony that there are those who are patting themselves on the back for being above misinformation and getting this important detail wrong.

I've seen the actual news that comes from them and while it's certainly biased rightward, particularly in what they choose to report on, it's not outrageously so.