←back to thread

Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

(www.theverge.com)
598 points leotravis10 | 1 comments | 04 Sep 25 15:30 UTC | HN request time: 0.197s | source
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 #
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 #
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 #
1. 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.