• BigBenis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    25 days ago

    We’re investigating private companies for bias now? Are Truth Social and Fox News next??

  • compostgoblin@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    25 days ago

    It’s funny, because they clearly have the idea in their head that Wikipedia is a single organization capable of an ideological bias. When if you take a single look at some talk pages, it would become clear very quickly that Wikipedia is built on people vociferously disagreeing and bringing sources to make the information presented ever more credible and unbiased.

    • original_charles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      25 days ago

      Wikipedia is built on people vociferously disagreeing and bringing sources to make the information presented ever more credible and unbiased.

      Yeah, that’s why they are upset with it.

  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    25 days ago

    I remember a time when telling the truth wasn’t considered bias by the Republican party. It was the same time when, “conservative speech” didn’t mean lies, misinformation, and hate speech.

  • mhague@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    24 days ago

    This is slop. Not necessarily AI generated, but definitely dumbass-generated.

    Literally not one ounce of effort. No digging into vague studies Republicans are talking about. No overview of Wikipedia’s current policy. No questions posed to someone who knows about Wikipedia and/or government attempts to control the narrative.

    It’s not even a good thing that the article only tells you the core facts. Too much goes unsaid. No context might as well be a hallucination from an AI for how much it bridges the gap between what you think and what reality contains.

  • RedFox@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    25 days ago

    Good thing they have all the millions of more important things solved than Wikipedia 😡

  • salty_chief@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    25 days ago

    Wikipedia is not accepted by colleges as a reliable source to cite. When you are writing a paper/essay. That should tell you that it isn’t a reliable source for information.

    • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      25 days ago

      That’s ridiculous. It’s not allowed because it’s not a primary source of information. It’s a great jumping off point for knowledge and if you need to cite something you can just look through its sources at the bottom of each page.

    • Goodman@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      24 days ago

      It’s true that it is not generally accepted for writing a paper or essay, but that does not mean that the information is completely unreliable. While I’m sure that Wikipedia is not perfect with regards to truth, it is more accessible, democratized and readable than many primary sources or peer reviewed articles. Those properties have a lot of value by themselves. Would you not agree?