Comment on Don't like the 'left liberal bias' of cited and sourced Wikipedia articles? Not a problem, our lord and savior Elon is introducing Grokipedia.

• Nalivai@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  The evidence for it is Wikipedia itself. If you have a concrete example of it siting something demonstrably wrong, bring it up, we can examine it here and if you are right, even fix it.

  source

  • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    The evidence for it is Wikipedia itself

    So literally just the Holy Scripture argument: “the Bible is true, and the evidence is the Bible”

    source

    • Nalivai@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I can bring up a lot of wrongs with the bible. I would like you to do the same with Wikipedia. Bring an example.
      Just to be clear, since it seems it needs to be spelled out to you, I’m not saying Wikipedia is infallible, quite the opposite, it’s written by people. I’m saying there are mechanisms and culture to correct the wrongs, which means it’s better than probably any collection of knowledge humanity ever had.
      So again, if you have examples, bring them up. Until then, don’t do the regular accusatory confessions you all do, it’s very boring and predictable.

      source

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I was going to chime in on this thread, but then I saw who it was that you’re arguing with.

        I would save my breath if I were you. Not worth the time.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I’m not saying Wikipedia is infallible

        Actually, you undeniably did: you said it “just lists facts”. You said that “Wikipedia itself is evidence that Wikipedia is factual”. You literally just said that “it’s better than any collection of knowledge humanity ever had.”

        This is how someone talks about religious scripture.

        Until then, don’t do the regular accusatory confessions you all do, it’s very boring and predictable.

        Go back to Reddit you wannabe anime villain loser. Jesus Christ, you zealots are incapable of not talking like the most bad faith smug man children alive.

        But here’s an example for your bad faith ass: Wikipedia states Israel has universal suffrage. Now let’s here your apologetic for why your holy book is correct even though it contradicts reality

        source
• echodot@feddit.uk ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  So you’re doing the classic thing of putting the burden of responsibility for your ridiculous claim on to somebody else to disprove. A classic sign of somebody not arguing in good faith.

  How can I prove that Wikipedia only lists facts since any evidence that I present, you will immediately disregard as untrue because of your preconceived bias.

  I want you to link to any article, on any subject matter on Wikipedia (in English so we can actually read it, I know that trick) that proves your claim of bias. I genuinely don’t believe you will be able to because if you could provide this evidence, you would have linked to it in your original comment.

  Your holy scripture arguement doesn’t work because Wikipedia isn’t a fixed source of stated reality, it’s a constantly changing constantly updated website. We know the Bible isn’t objective reality because we’ve had it for a very long time and have been able to test it against known historical accounts, and they don’t match up. Wikipedia on the other hand is updated millions of times a day. Even if an article had some bias, by the end of the first day that bias would have been corrected by someone who didn’t like the bias. But you’re stating that there is a deep rooted institutional bias. I’d like you to indicate it please.

  source

  • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    So you’re doing the classic thing of putting the burden of responsibility for your ridiculous claim on to somebody else to disprove. A classic sign of somebody not arguing in good faith.

    No, that was you making the claim that Wikipedia is pure unbiased fact and then putting the burden of responsibility on me to disprove it. But I know you don’t actually know what “arguing in good faith” means, it’s just a phrase you parrot after seeing it used on Reddit as magic incantation to win arguments.

    How can I prove that Wikipedia only lists facts

    If you don’t have evidence for it, why did you claim it? Just use what ever proof you based your original assertion on, assuming you had any.

    any evidence that I present, you will immediately disregard as untrue because of your preconceived bias.

    Wow, real good faith there, telling me what I’m going to do ahead of time. Sounds like you have nothing and you know it.

    I want you to link to any article, on any subject matter on Wikipedia (in English so we can actually read it, I know that trick) that proves your claim of bias. I genuinely don’t believe you will be able to because if you could provide this evidence, you would have linked to it in your original comment.

    I literally already gave you an example, but you intended it. Seems like you saying that I would “immediately disregard as untrue because of your preconceived bias” was just you projecting your own behaviour on to me.

    Your holy scripture arguement doesn’t work because Wikipedia isn’t a fixed source of stated reality, it’s a constantly changing constantly updated website.

    So it only lists facts, it doesn’t have a single biased article, but also its constantly changing… Hmmm. So apparently it doesn’t just state facts, it even changes what the facts are! Definitely nothing religious about that…

    Even if an article had some bias, by the end of the first day that bias would have been corrected by someone who didn’t like the bias.

    Orrrr a bias would have been introduced by someone who didn’t like the lack of bias.

    But you’re stating that there is a deep rooted institutional bias. I’d like you to indicate it please.

    I’d like you to explain how you determined that the overwhelming white, western, male, neoliberal perspective that dominates Wikipedia represents the One True unbiased perspective on reality. I’d like you to explain how you determined that sources like Radio Free Asia and the NYT, which Wikipedia treats as authoritative, are inherently always factual and unbiased despite having frequently lied in the past.

    source