Wikipedia or wokepedia?

[Sex Alarm]

What do you think? Doesn't it seem like Wikipedia has a heavy left-wing bias and censors facts that offend The Narrative?

[Dom]

Sex Alarm a écrit :

Dom a écrit :

The whole purpose of Wikipedia's existence is to be a source of information based on truth. It was created to honor that, and it is the tradition. Therefore,it would be inconceivable that they would please an audience of people who support a political figure who lied more than 30,000 times in 4 years.

While Trump was banning anyone from "Truth" Social who dared to point out the aggression on January 6th, Wikipedia was there to list all of the details.

While Trump was out there on national television telling that Haitian immigrants are eating pet dogs, Wikipedia was out there to point out that there hasn't been a single report of that happening and this statement by Trump resulted in death threats in Springfield.

These are remarkable contributions by its community, dedicated to truth and explaining these things as how they happened, even if it does not please everyone.
But what can you do if the opposition to this is pure propaganda and falsehoods?

The TDS is strong in this one.

Not really. If you report these things accurately, people are going to claim left-wing bias. If you correctly point out that January 6th resulted in over a hundred injured police officers and multiple people dying, people are going to claim that it's left-wing bias.

And is Wikipedia supposed to simply ignore that Trump got 2% of the wall done with taxpayer money, of which a big portion was area that already had barriers, while he promised to build a wall and "Mexico is going to pay for it"?

Is Wikipedia supposed to ignore over one-hour recorded phone call audio where he was threatening and pressuring state officials in Georgia to find him over 11,000 votes?

If America didn't have such a lying individual representing the leader of one of the two major parties, then they might have less problems with those who are dedicated to truthful information.

[Sex Alarm]

Dom a écrit :

Sex Alarm a écrit :

The TDS is strong in this one.

Not really. If you report these things accurately, people are going to claim left-wing bias. If you correctly point out that January 6th resulted in over a hundred injured police officers and multiple people dying, people are going to claim that it's left-wing bias.

And is Wikipedia supposed to simply ignore that Trump got 2% of the wall done with taxpayer money, of which a big portion was area that already had barriers, while he promised to build a wall and "Mexico is going to pay for it"?

Is Wikipedia supposed to ignore over one-hour recorded phone call audio where he was threatening and pressuring state officials in Georgia to find him over 11,000 votes?

If America didn't have such a lying individual representing the leader of one of the two major parties, then they might have less problems with those who are dedicated to truthful information.

Yes really, this thread had nothing to do with Trump but for some reason you feel the need to bring him up and go on an unrelated rant full of false information. Classic TDS symptoms.

[Not Big Surprise]

Sex Alarm a écrit :

Dom a écrit :

Not really. If you report these things accurately, people are going to claim left-wing bias. If you correctly point out that January 6th resulted in over a hundred injured police officers and multiple people dying, people are going to claim that it's left-wing bias.

And is Wikipedia supposed to simply ignore that Trump got 2% of the wall done with taxpayer money, of which a big portion was area that already had barriers, while he promised to build a wall and "Mexico is going to pay for it"?

Is Wikipedia supposed to ignore over one-hour recorded phone call audio where he was threatening and pressuring state officials in Georgia to find him over 11,000 votes?

If America didn't have such a lying individual representing the leader of one of the two major parties, then they might have less problems with those who are dedicated to truthful information.

Yes really, this thread had nothing to do with Trump but for some reason you feel the need to bring him up and go on an unrelated rant full of false information. Classic TDS symptoms.

trump is merely an example
and a very relevant one at that

[Rain't]

Sex Alarm a écrit :

What do you think? Doesn't it seem like Wikipedia has a heavy left-wing bias and censors facts that offend The Narrative?

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/12/4767710913123584074/

[Sex Alarm]

Not Big Surprise a écrit :

Sex Alarm a écrit :

Yes really, this thread had nothing to do with Trump but for some reason you feel the need to bring him up and go on an unrelated rant full of false information. Classic TDS symptoms.

trump is merely an example
and a very relevant one at that

Not really.

[Sex Alarm]

Rain't a écrit :

Sex Alarm a écrit :

What do you think? Doesn't it seem like Wikipedia has a heavy left-wing bias and censors facts that offend The Narrative?

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/12/4767710913123584074/

Nobody cares about your edgy post.

[Kobs]

tili1 a écrit :

Sadly Wikipedia is a very biased website. People have complained about this several times -> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/27/wikipedia-biased-bbc-how-left-took-platform/

You shouldn’t trust wikipedia in any heavy political ideas, since they will always favor left leaning ideas.

In everything there's a "boss" at the top and everything goes through him or someone he trusts. Knowing this we all know no human can be totally on the line between the two so yeah nothing on this earth will be unless it's ran by some AI computer that's been programmed to be impartial

[Pippinhot]

I am surprised that anyone still using Wikipedia. As it known by everyone that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. I wouldn't say Wikipedia as a viable source for information.

[Siluva]

Anoi Hidalgo a écrit :

Sex Alarm a écrit :

The TDS is strong in this one.

it's terminal at this point

That's classic Holo / Dom / Apex post for ya'

[Dom]

Sex Alarm a écrit :

Dom a écrit :

Not really. If you report these things accurately, people are going to claim left-wing bias. If you correctly point out that January 6th resulted in over a hundred injured police officers and multiple people dying, people are going to claim that it's left-wing bias.

And is Wikipedia supposed to simply ignore that Trump got 2% of the wall done with taxpayer money, of which a big portion was area that already had barriers, while he promised to build a wall and "Mexico is going to pay for it"?

Is Wikipedia supposed to ignore over one-hour recorded phone call audio where he was threatening and pressuring state officials in Georgia to find him over 11,000 votes?

If America didn't have such a lying individual representing the leader of one of the two major parties, then they might have less problems with those who are dedicated to truthful information.

Yes really, this thread had nothing to do with Trump but for some reason you feel the need to bring him up and go on an unrelated rant full of false information. Classic TDS symptoms.

It has to do with Trump, since you're talking about "left-wing biases" and "wokeism". It's a case example where many people would make the exact same conclusions as you have.

What was "false information" about my comment, huh? I'm curious.

[Rain't]

Sex Alarm a écrit :

Rain't a écrit :

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/12/4767710913123584074/

Nobody cares about your edgy post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6oTIjvw_-8

[sleeps]

Dom a écrit :

Sex Alarm a écrit :

Yes really, this thread had nothing to do with Trump but for some reason you feel the need to bring him up and go on an unrelated rant full of false information. Classic TDS symptoms.

It has to do with Trump, since you're talking about "left-wing biases" and "wokeism". It's a case example where many people would make the exact same conclusions as you have.

What was "false information" about my comment, huh? I'm curious.

wikipedia based itself on truth, which by itself is not. rather it is outsourcing multiple sources which reliability can vary.

[apathy]

Wikipedia is only as good as the users logging into it. Not very.

Most of them don't know what facts, studies, or history are, only academia. They won't accept anything nowadays unless its cited by a left-wing media outlet.

[Dom]

sleeps a écrit :

Dom a écrit :

It has to do with Trump, since you're talking about "left-wing biases" and "wokeism". It's a case example where many people would make the exact same conclusions as you have.

What was "false information" about my comment, huh? I'm curious.

wikipedia based itself on truth, which by itself is not. rather it is outsourcing multiple sources which reliability can vary.

Wikipedia is generally quite accurate because when the amount of contributors go up, so does the accuracy of the information. You notice that in just about anything you do in your life. An example of this would be if you're conducting some scientific tests with one participant, you cannot draw very far-reaching conclusions from the data because it's just one person. But if you have 10, 30, 100 or more participants, the data becomes more accurate as it neutralizes (or stabilizes) itself and those individual errors get "narrowed down" as the total amount of test samples increase. Because in each test sample, there are more things right than wrong, even if there are individual errors. So each added sample increases the overall accuracy rate.

In Wikipedia's context it just means that more contributors = noticing incorrect pieces of information faster and fixing it.

Also the fact that Wikipedia expects citations is not a bad thing. Because sources can also be ranked based on information accuracy.

[King of Games]

Dom a écrit :

Wikipedia is generally quite accurate

Thats the funniest thing ive read in a long time, you should apply to be a writer for the onion