• compostgoblin@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    6 hours 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.

  • db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    11 hours ago

    “Stop accurately documenting my actual behavior!” - House Repugnicans

  • tabular@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 hours ago

    The answer to any bias in Wikipedia is to cite more verifiable sources, use better sound reasoning and update when newer evidence is found.

    The answer is probably not the wishful thinking of one of USA’s unrepresentative main parties. To learn about public misrepresentation in government check out a page from Wikipedia.

    • zerofk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      They don’t accept verifiable sources. A hundred peer reviewed papers don’t weigh up against a single dissenting voice if that one voice agrees with their views.

  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    10 hours 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.

  • RedFox@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

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