Thread 18072312

>>18072312 (OP)
>but it's not here to push a point of view.
Lol

>>18072315
So refute it with evidence.

There is some left leaning bias but no more than your average republicuck would endorse. Everywhere else has more bias and less information.

>>18072326
There is tons of left leaning biased. There are some editors who spend their entire time censoring wikipedia to make it so.

>>18072328
Yhea, i know, still. It's people editing it and the vast majority of it is factual information. It's a good model. Other "encyclopedia" websites that are top down curated are much worse.

>>18072321
Say no more senpai
https://manhattan.institute/article/new-study-finds-political-bias-embedded-in-wikipedia-articles

>>18072331
If you want to use the wikipedia to search for (for example), salmon (the fish) wikipedia is OK. If you want to use it for anything controversial, not so much

>>18072335
If you search the holocaust on Wikipedia (I just did) you find the mainstream accepted narrative of the holocaust. If you search communist genocide (I just did) i will admit it's more vague and provides leftist opinions casting doubt on its extensiviness. This just seems to reflect mainstream American Bias really. The holocaust has been extensively studied and is culturally a huge thing in America. The communist killings are a vague thing with hazy direct evidence that leftist downplay regularly. But at least when it provides these claims it acknowledges its leftist authors. Over all it seems fairly balanced. I'm speaking from an entirely centrist viewpoint. Anyhow provide some other examples why don't you? Post url's to unfactual leftist bias.

>>18072361
Holocaust one is nonsense too, but you don't have to go that far
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

>>18072361
What languages did you read? I wouldn't honestly expect profound insight into niche eastern European tragedies from the American or British public, even if academically trained.

>>18072363
It provides the mainstream view yet informs you of differing opinions and their authors. Enabling you to do your own reading. It leitterally is an accurate reflection of mainstream American opinion on the matter. Once again, I fail to see the problem. Hard-core leftists would not provide so many sources and counter arguments. Also social and environmental effects really do influence i.q.
Leftists actually hate Wikipedia because it doesn't have an authoritarian administrator who would skew that page entirely one way.

>>18072333
Political bias like
>the holocaust happened
And
>stalin got a lot of people killed

>>18072369
Just one (self?) translated Author first hand. And some historical articles. But in English.

>>18072390
Well, you see, Communism was just like that plus industrialization effects and stuff.

>>18072361
>>18072320
>>18072363
so
>leftist political biases
just means not sucking hitler cock and not screaming
>kill all nogs
all over the place

Welcome boys and girls to another episode of rightniggers find reality has a left leaning bias

>>18072406
Bias still bias. Where are pro-Hitler articles in Wikipedia? So much for a supposed neutral point of view.

>>18072331
such as?

>>18072383
Uh huh. Wikipedia provides the mainstream view because it is mainstream.

>>18072418
>leftist political biases means not sucking Fagtler dick
what's the point of your post if you didn't add anything new

>>18072369
>niche eastern European tragedies

>>18072435
They were, sorry to burst your bubble. What happened in the Soviet Union stayed in the Soviet Union. They had the good taste to not make it everyone's problem, unlike Shitler.

>>18072435
It is, compared to One of the most documented genocides in history
The only sources we had were estimations and accounts from some insiders. Only after 91 was there any real Access to proper sources for the Holodomor

>>18072390
Did you even read my link, you retard? There is nothing about that trash, you lazy idiot

>>18072442
>this is what commies actually believe

>Left wingers strawmanning and calling whoever calls out wikipedia's bias nazis

But let's see what a recent study said
>In his assessment, Rozado computationally assesses the sentiment and emotional tone associated with politically charged terms within Wikipedia articles (i.e., names of recent U.S. presidents, U.S. congressmembers, U.S. Supreme Court justices, or prime ministers of Western countries). Findings show that Wikipedia entries are more likely to attach negative sentiment to terms representative of right-leaning political orientation than to their left-leaning counterparts. Moreover, terms suggestive of right-of-center political stances are more frequently connected with emotions of anger and disgust than those suggestive of a left-of-center stance. Conversely, terms associated with left-leaning ideology are more frequently linked with the emotion of joy than terms associated with right-leaning ideology.

>>18072485
>hurr durr be angry, hate nogs, race war is coming, billions must die, you must struggle for the huwait race zieg hail kill minorities
>whaat? why would anyone think that we are le bad? this is hecking leftist bias

>>18072549
>I like the bias therefore its not a bias
facts are facts and opinions are opinions. Nothing will change that.

>>18072561
it's not bias, altright, facists and neonazis constantly say stuff that come from anger and disgust, I don't see the problem. Saying that racism is evil is not a leftist bias

As you no doubt guessed, American and British authorities had direct firsthand knowledge of the concentration camps and scores of survivors as witnesses. Less was known about communist genocides especially pre-1990s.

>>18072312 (OP)
If you edit pages on American politics in the last 20 years you deserve every bad thing that comes to you.

>>18072563
>it's not bias when it's my side vs your side

>>18072549
Did you even read my post or are you just trolling?

>>18072312 (OP)
>>18072578
>>18072561
> muh left-wing bias
And when right-wingers try to create thier own coservapedia it's always end up x10000 more biased.

>>18072591
Are you low IQ?
Something called "Conservapedia" is supposed to be biased. Wikipedia doesn't claim to be biased.

>>18072578
racism is not a side, it's a crime, it's like crying that society is biased aganist murders and pedophiles and locks them in jails
>>18072590
yup, and seem like you were unable to refute anything

>>18072591
That site doesn't claim to be neutral wikipedia does.

>>18072624
pedophilia is a mental illness, are you biased against autism too?

>>18072624
>society is biased aganist murders and pedophiles
Society IS biased against murders and pedophiles there is nothing inaccurate with saying that.

You people do realize there is more to bias than just left wing vs right wing or politics generally right?

>>18072678
and what is wrong with that?

>>18072624
In your opinion, is Mitt Romney a Nazi? Why should his article have a more negative tone than Warren?
Why should Roberts have a more negative tone in his article than Ketanji Brown Jackson?

>>18072430
This is a huge taboo that can't be discussed openly by someone who may be able to actually prove it. So like I said, mainstream.

>>18072688
I never said there was anything wrong with it but if you're arguing, right and wrong is a matter of opinion so it would depend on what you think.

>>18072718
morality is le spook let's just nuke everything

>>18072779
no, its just subjective

>>18072699
Regardless, there you go. There's your evidence of Wikipedia selling falsehoods in a subject that is clear as day obvious. And this is in what really is a "hard" science. i.e. genetics, psychometrics, biology; this isn't something as soft as politics or history.

>>18072430
This is right, leftists legitimately hate Wikipedia so much because they can't just ban people
The worst are trannies who make articles for the most pointless shit and actually delete useful articles

>>18072685
Yes environmental slop always gets put in instead of useful stuff in a few articles
Also i think most companies pay ppl to edit their articles

>>18072699
>that can't be discussed openly
except by all the people discussing it openly with their name and face writing books and recording podcasts

>>18072828
Or just pay off the source articles. A perfect example is video game journalism where its been proven multiple times that reviewers are paid off by the publisher. For things like business its not so transparent but you can't tell me these magazine like forbes and fortune don't need to trade fluffs for scoops when things are running dry.

>>18072456
Remember the time the Soviet Union invaded and occupied France, bombed Britain and declared war on America over agricultural vandals? Good time.

>>18072312 (OP)
The same wikipedia who is scrubbing all the early life jewish sections? The one with a strong liberal bias?

>>18072854
No but I remember them invading and occupying half of europe for almost half a century and being in a cold war with the rest.

>>18072840
There're also cases of cross referencing. I saw a video on it, and it basically made up an entire isis emirate in libya or some shit

>>18072884
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents