• tabular@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    13 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.

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 minutes ago

      To play devil’s advocate, an issue arises when there AREN’T more verifiable sources. If someone makes an outlandish claim like “Billy Joel used to wash his ass with crisco” and cites a dubious interview, it’s hard to find a source that definitively states Billy Joel DIDN’T wash his ass with crisco. Even worse, is if there was an actual, verified instance of one time where Billy Joel washed his ass with crisco. That may have been the only time he ever did it, and it may have been done as a joke or something like that, but now we have an interview saying he did it regularly, and an example of when he did. Now it’s a lot harder to disprove.

      I feel gross defending Republican talking points, now I need to go take a shower. Maybe wash my ass with crisco.

    • zerofk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 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.