brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
First… are the people bringing this up really into social media? Or conservative, by chance?
There’s three potentially confused things:
-
Oldschool “Wikipedia isn’t a primary source.” I learned this in middle school. It’s technically true.
-
There’s slightly newer accusations of a liberal Wikipedia bias. Hence the attempt to create Conservapedia. There’s a tiny nugget of truth, perhaps, but not to the outrageous extent suggested.
-
THEN there are modern attempts to discredit Wikipedia as a whole. Mind my tinfoil hat, but I’d argue it’s largely algorithmic and Big Tech driven, as it’s a high profile information source they cannot control, a place where things are documented they don’t necessarily want in the limelight.
There’s some overlap too, like Musk’s motivations, rants, and actions falling into category 2 and 3. Or some hijacking of point 1.
sbeak@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Well of course, the wiki that supports free access to information is more often than not contributed by people who support that. But that is a very slight bias, and you’re pretty messed in the head if you believe that information should inherently be restricted to a certain group of people.
EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Reality has a left wing bias.
TheFogan@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
Unfortunately the biggest part is, there’s kind of 2 definitions of bias at this point.
There’s the older, what I’d consider should be the truer form where bias is about taking a side or leaning the interpretation of the established facts on things that don’t have a 100% perfect consistant answer. IE Sportsball team A is better than sportsball team B, when obviously every part of that equasion is a dynamic, every player has good and bad days. good and bad weather conditions etc… who they’ve played against and how good they are etc…
Same for political concepts where at the very least it’s worth noting there’s no agreed upon by all of political science good and bad with regards to ideas etc…
Then you’ve got the type B bias where… well one side is outright denying the objective facts. Going to the sportsball analogy, that’s like one side says “Team A won 900 to 0 against team B”, while fans of team B go “look the game’s score is right here… team b won 52-20”. and they call you bias for trusting the sportsball leagues official scores, and the game that aired on national television, over the word of team A’s number one fan.