←back to thread

Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

(www.theverge.com)
598 points leotravis10 | 3 comments | 04 Sep 25 15:30 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
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 #
pavlov[dead post] ◴[04 Sep 25 19:49 UTC] No.45131510[source]▶
[flagged]
PathOfEclipse[dead post] ◴[04 Sep 25 19:56 UTC] No.45131573[source]▶
[flagged]
1. gdulli ◴[04 Sep 25 20:23 UTC] No.45131831[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 #
2. PathOfEclipse ◴[04 Sep 25 22:01 UTC] No.45132708[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 #
3. gdulli ◴[04 Sep 25 22:16 UTC] No.45132861[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.