This opinion is a bit extreme, but take the “Science” subreddit for example. Reddit is full of rules, but “Science” in particular only lets you post links from trusted sources and is very uptight about the rules.
Comment on What is a federated alternative to Wikipedia?
0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks agoThe problem with Wikipedia is who controls the narrative and it is controlled by a few who have incentives to sway public opinion.
…berkeley.edu/…/the-bias-of-notability-in-wikiped…
manhattan.institute/…/new-study-finds-political-b…
You could have spared yourself the AI slop by saying you’re fine with the current bias. Where do you think most source on Wikipedia comes from? Articles from mainstream media which is mostly handled and curated by the western nations that until very recently denied anything bad happening in Gaza? The one that minimized the atrocities of Iraq and Afghanistan war and countless other interventions.
How do you think that works into a “neutral point of view” narrative?
obbeel@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 weeks ago
Wikipedia was relatively early in labeling the Gaza genocide.
Also, as others have said, you can clone Wikipedia right now and set up your own structure to edit it. The problem is that most clones end up like Conversatopeda, which generally tends to add a lot of bias to the articles.