←back to thread

Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

(www.theverge.com)
598 points leotravis10 | 2 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 #
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 #
1. 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 #
2. hulium ◴[06 Sep 25 00:00 UTC] No.45145138[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.