What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Wikipedia's Leftist Bias

asaratis

Uppity Senior Citizen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
17,658
Reaction score
6,467
Points
350
Location
Stockbridge

Lewdog

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
23,927
Reaction score
3,185
Points
290
Location
Williamsburg, KY
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.


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. :rolleyes:
 

MisterBeale

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
32,505
Reaction score
14,341
Points
1,590
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. :rolleyes:
. . . 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.
 

Race Burley

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
93,445
Reaction score
35,051
Points
2,290

MisterBeale

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
32,505
Reaction score
14,341
Points
1,590
High School and College kids are explicitly told not to use Wiki as a source. . .

Most educated folks already know this.
 
OP
asaratis

asaratis

Uppity Senior Citizen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
17,658
Reaction score
6,467
Points
350
Location
Stockbridge
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. :rolleyes:
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.
 
OP
asaratis

asaratis

Uppity Senior Citizen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
17,658
Reaction score
6,467
Points
350
Location
Stockbridge
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

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
23,927
Reaction score
3,185
Points
290
Location
Williamsburg, KY
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
61,653
Reaction score
19,435
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually

Stryder50

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
624
Points
893
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
. . . 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.

Bitch 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.
 
Last edited:
OP
asaratis

asaratis

Uppity Senior Citizen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
17,658
Reaction score
6,467
Points
350
Location
Stockbridge
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.

Bitch 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

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
14,370
Reaction score
2,325
Points
245
Location
Virginia
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 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?
 
OP
asaratis

asaratis

Uppity Senior Citizen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
17,658
Reaction score
6,467
Points
350
Location
Stockbridge
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

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
14,370
Reaction score
2,325
Points
245
Location
Virginia
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

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
13,701
Reaction score
7,085
Points
1,065
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

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
13,701
Reaction score
7,085
Points
1,065
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

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
624
Points
893
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
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! :113:
 

Stryder50

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
624
Points
893
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
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.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top