←back to thread

Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

(www.theverge.com)
598 points leotravis10 | 8 comments | 04 Sep 25 15:30 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
Whoppertime ◴[04 Sep 25 21:02 UTC] No.45132149[source]▶
Wikipedia is a good source for certain kinds of information. If you ask it about anything political it's going to be from a certain slant and the most informative part of the page will be the Talk page which explains what people would like on the page that isn't there, or shouldn't be on the page but is
replies(7): >>45132192 #>>45132209 #>>45132221 #>>45135506 #>>45137668 #>>45140158 #>>45148207 #
1. tim333 ◴[05 Sep 25 12:19 UTC] No.45137668[source]▶
>If you ask it about anything political it's going to be from a certain slant

I'm not sure if there's anything else out there that's better at giving a fairly neutral summary of political controversies?

It reminds me of the Churchill quote "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

replies(2): >>45138726 #>>45142927 #
2. Gareth321 ◴[05 Sep 25 14:04 UTC] No.45138726[source]▶
Ground.news is quite good. It provides a bias meter next to publications, and offers a blind spot tool so one doesn't only see one side of a report or discussion. Wikipedia doesn't have such a counter-measure. Most of the political pages have been entirely captured and there are no mechanisms promote neutrality. On the contrary. WikiProjects, Arbitration Committees, and Administrators are all very entrenched positions and once the scales tipped towards a left wing American political bias, there is no way to tip them back.
replies(1): >>45139896 #
3. rc_mob ◴[05 Sep 25 15:45 UTC] No.45139896[source]▶
stupid reality and its left wing bias
replies(1): >>45141472 #
4. apparent ◴[05 Sep 25 17:53 UTC] No.45141472{3}[source]▶
This cute phrase was much more believable before Democrats were so insistently wrong about so many important things during COVID (lab leak theory, efficacy of cloth mask mandates, arresting surfers on the beach, natural versus vaccine immunity).
replies(1): >>45144219 #
5. voldacar ◴[05 Sep 25 19:57 UTC] No.45142927[source]▶
A quantitative look which might interest you:

https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/is-wikipedia-politically-...

replies(2): >>45143627 #>>45146133 #
6. sethherr ◴[05 Sep 25 21:06 UTC] No.45143627[source]▶
The article address this very criticism
7. apparent ◴[05 Sep 25 22:08 UTC] No.45144219{4}[source]▶
I see that others disagree. Perhaps you can share which of the items I mentioned you disagree with?
8. grafmax ◴[06 Sep 25 02:36 UTC] No.45146133[source]▶
> Results show a mild to moderate tendency in Wikipedia articles to associate public figures ideologically aligned right-of-center with more negative sentiment than public figures ideologically aligned left-of-center

It could be that politicians right of center have a tendency to do things which merit negative sentiment slightly more often than politicians left of center. It begs the question to call this bias.