Wikipedia's Leftist Bias

[asaratis]

You can trust liberals...to invade and alter information sources. Hereafter, you should not trust Wikipedia to be an unbiased source...if you ever did.

Wikipedia's Own Co-Founder Warns His Site Is Compromised by Leftists and Can't Be Trusted

For years, Wikipedia has been a source of quick and dirty knowledge about any given subject under th

redstate.com

 

[Lewdog]

You can trust liberals...to invade and alter information sources. Hereafter, you should not trust Wikipedia to be an unbiased source...if you ever did.

Wikipedia's Own Co-Founder Warns His Site Is Compromised by Leftists and Can't Be Trusted

For years, Wikipedia has been a source of quick and dirty knowledge about any given subject under th

redstate.com

You shouldn't look at Wikipedia as a source period... because it can be edited by random people. It has nothing to do with being politically biased.

 

[MisterBeale]

You shouldn't look at Wikipedia as a source period... because it can be edited by random people. It has nothing to do with being politically biased.

. . . ah. . . it's an alright starting point for a survey of topics. If you now how it is organized.

I always, ALWAYS look at the sources used, and than go to those sources if I can, to read them.

Then I do an independent search outside of the wiki.

 

[miketx]

You can trust liberals...to invade and alter information sources. Hereafter, you should not trust Wikipedia to be an unbiased source...if you ever did.

Wikipedia's Own Co-Founder Warns His Site Is Compromised by Leftists and Can't Be Trusted

For years, Wikipedia has been a source of quick and dirty knowledge about any given subject under th

redstate.com

Already know, they lie out their asses.

 

[MisterBeale]

High School and College kids are explicitly told not to use Wiki as a source. . .

Most educated folks already know this.

 

[asaratis]

You shouldn't look at Wikipedia as a source period... because it can be edited by random people. It has nothing to do with being politically biased.

As a source for biographical information it's fairly reliable. Any information they present can be double checked elsewhere. For dates of births (and deaths) of notable people, it's fine. For political issues, I use other sources.

 

[asaratis]

High School and College kids are explicitly told not to use Wiki as a source. . .

Most educated folks already know this.

Yet many on this forum use it for discussions related to political issues. I think that's what the co-founder is warning about. I already knew it was unreliable for that.

 

[Lewdog]

As a source for biographical information it's fairly reliable. Any information they present can be double checked elsewhere. For dates of births (and deaths) of notable people, it's fine. For political issues, I use other sources.

You cannot use ANYTHING on there as a legitimate source. As has already been mentioned, the best thing it can be used for is what is called source mining. So you look at the sources that were used to add info onto Wikipedia pages, then research those sources, and use them as references if they are legitimate. It has nothing to do with political bias.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You can trust liberals...to invade and alter information sources. Hereafter, you should not trust Wikipedia to be an unbiased source...if you ever did.

Wikipedia's Own Co-Founder Warns His Site Is Compromised by Leftists and Can't Be Trusted

For years, Wikipedia has been a source of quick and dirty knowledge about any given subject under th

redstate.com

More conservative victimhood tripe

 

[Stryder50]

. . . ah. . . it's an alright starting point for a survey of topics. If you now how it is organized.

I always, ALWAYS look at the sources used, and than go to those sources if I can, to read them.

Then I do an independent search outside of the wiki.

On some topics it can serve as a stand-alone basic source, but as you suggest, check it's sources and then use those to cite for the persons whom are testy about Wiki.

If you want basic information, say regards the nature and properties of the element nitrogen, Wiki is OK. But if going for topics tinged with political overlays and applications, like anthropogenic climate change(ACC) or anthropogenic global warming (AGW), than expect the left leaning bias and partial truths to run all through what you will find.

History and historical events tend to be more objective, especially the further back one goes, but still, check the sources used by Wiki.

Recent events, current political personalities, recent legislation and political activities will all need close examination and hesitancy to accept at literal value. Similar with many recent "news" stories. These all are where bias, mostly Left leaning creep in.

***** is that it's not just Wiki where this is a problem/challenge. Through out most MSM sources/sites and many first to second page lists one gets with websearching one will find many sites~sources that are far from objective, and the subjective most often leans Left.

 

[asaratis]

On some topics it can serve as a stand-alone basic source, but as you suggest, check it's sources and then use those to cite for the persons whom are testy about Wiki.

If you want basic information, say regards the nature and properties of the element nitrogen, Wiki is OK. But if going for topics tinged with political overlays and applications, like anthropogenic climate change(ACC) or anthropogenic global warming (AGW), than expect the left leaning bias and partial truths to run all through what you will find.

History and historical events tend to be more objective, especially the further back one goes, but still, check the sources used by Wiki.

Recent events, current political personalities, recent legislation and political activities will all need close examination and hesitancy to accept at literal value. Similar with many recent "news" stories. These all are where bias, mostly Left leaning creep in.

***** is that it's not just Wiki where this is a problem/challenge. Through out most MSM sources/sites and many first to second page lists one gets with websearching one will find many sites~sources that are far from objective, and the subjective most often leans Left.

It also helps to use DuckDuckGo as a search engine instead of Google. I've used both on the same political issue for several tests. Google will filter out conservative views or often place them at the bottom of a long list.

 

[alang1216]

You can trust liberals...to invade and alter information sources. Hereafter, you should not trust Wikipedia to be an unbiased source...if you ever did.

Wikipedia's Own Co-Founder Warns His Site Is Compromised by Leftists and Can't Be Trusted

For years, Wikipedia has been a source of quick and dirty knowledge about any given subject under th

redstate.com

Wikipedia is maintained by people both knowledgeable about a topic and interested enough to donate their time. Aren't there any conservatives that fit that description?

 

[asaratis]

Wikipedia is maintained by people both knowledgeable about a topic and interested enough to donate their time. Aren't there any conservatives that fit that description?

Plenty...but we don't waste our time contributing to an information site that allows others to edit or delete what we write on political issues. I have edited a few scientific entries in years past.

As I said, I don't bother reading much about political topics there. With exceptions of biographies of notable political figures, I seldom read anything other than scientific topics.

 

[alang1216]

Plenty...but we don't waste our time contributing to an information site that allows others to edit or delete what we write on political issues. I have edited a few scientific entries in years past.

As I said, I don't bother reading much about political topics there. With exceptions of biographies of notable political figures, I seldom read anything other than scientific topics.

Got it. It is way easier to curse the darkness rather than going to the trouble of lighting a candle.

 

[Leo123]

It also helps to use DuckDuckGo as a search engine instead of Google. I've used both on the same political issue for several tests. Google will filter out conservative views or often place them at the bottom of a long list.

Yes, I also use Startpage however I do find that searches will defer to Google which is a left biased search engine today.

 

[Leo123]

Got it. It is way easier to curse the darkness rather than going to the trouble of lighting a candle.

Wiki, Google and the MSM ART the darkness. Come away from the darkness!!!!

 

[Stryder50]

It also helps to use DuckDuckGo as a search engine instead of Google. I've used both on the same political issue for several tests. Google will filter out conservative views or often place them at the bottom of a long list.

With you there. I use DuckDuckGo all the time!

 

[Stryder50]

Wikipedia is maintained by people both knowledgeable about a topic and interested enough to donate their time. Aren't there any conservatives that fit that description?

There are, but there remains hints of editors whom aren't conservative.
Some conservatives put their time and efforts on other sites on the internet.