Reality has a liberal bias.
Leftist, even
Colbert used the term in a more traditional sense, as opposed to how it's sometimes used now as an insult by harder leftists.
The more traditional sense is the global definition.
I knew you knew that, my comment was more for the passers-by who may not even be old enough to remember that it was a Colbert quote.
It's not an insult. It's the widely accepted term for the ideology of the bourgeoisie. They self-describe as liberals. That's been the usage of the term since its coining; USAmericans just decided to only use it to describe more left-leaning liberals rather than all liberals. If it's used as an insult, it's between communists accusing another communist of not being a communist, not because liberalism is inherently a pejorative. Like if a right-winger calls someone a communist as an insult, it's not because communism is a pejorative, it's because it's a non-communist accusing another non-communist of not being not-communist enough.
Part of Larry Sanger's statement
"In the kangaroo court in which a mob ousted me, Wikipedia’s administrators showed that they don’t appear to value details like formal charges, a designated prosecutor, basic decorum, distinction between prosecution and judge..."
Does this guy think Wikipedia is run like a country
Faux News melts their brain and breaks who they are as people
I’m not sure the NYP took the bait, they’re more like the bait shop; more than happy to sell whatever the right wing outrage machine is selling on a given day.
And when there's nothing to sell today, they'll drum up some shit for a sale tomorrow
Yeah... The Post isn't much of a shocker. It'd be more of a shocker if it were NYT.
In the kangaroo court in which a mob ousted me, Wikipedia’s administrators showed that they don’t appear to value details like formal charges, a designated prosecutor, basic decorum, distinction between prosecution and judge, dispassionate adjudication, and so forth
These hypocrite fucks always rail off at the mouth about how abused they are... and it's always just to get their foot in the door. Once they run the show, they rewrite history, dole out all the abuse they want and face zero repercussions. Intolerant shits that the rest of us simply must tolerate. Well go fuck yourself Larry Sanger. The world doesn't need more right-wing bullshit.
Wikipedia’s administrators showed that they don’t appear to value details like formal charges, a designated prosecutor, basic decorum, distinction between prosecution and judge, dispassionate adjudication
It would be deranged and far from a good thing if online moderation and dispute adjudication decided to use a criminal model of trying to prove a person's guilt
The real life criminal justice system is the opposite of unbiased and fair
Karl Popper has entered the chat
Sanger was laid off from Wikipedia early on, started a competitor site that failed, and then returned to Wikipedia not so much to contribute but to rail against the project, his only credentials being setting up some of the crucial rules for the site two decades ago. It was really pathetic, like an ex pestering the other one years after the breakup, unable to move on. I hope he finds a better hobby now.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert
What's funny is that Jimmy Wales, who has described himself as an objectivist, is far from "leftist" or "liberal" himself. But unlike this asshole, he is principled.
In the end conservatism is only appealing to those in power. And people with power work every day to ensure everyone else has none.
These reactionaries will never be happy until literally everything is a fascist propaganda outlet. Not content with all mainstream media and social media, wikipedia and other community information hubs must fall next
exactly. there may be genuine improvements Wikipedia could make, but as long as there's a rabid pack of chuds making demands that change happen, I'll support Wiki taking it slowly and deliberately. Anything that pisses off those fuckwits has to be good for humanity.
The thing is Wikipedia isn't even left-wing. User survey shows the editors holds left-wing and right-wing beliefs about equally. And Jimmy Wales, the founder, is an Ayn Rand reading "objectivist" for crying out loud.
reality has a well known left-wing bias
If you base something on facts, it will be left leaning. Right leaning has a higher value in loyalty, authority, respect, and spirituality. They will deny facts if they have to in order to prioritize their other values. Right leaning people tend to be more likely to be on time, have cleaner desks, and speak more formally to someone they deem a "superior". Left leaning often could give a rats ass about authority, and respect is only given once it's earned.
All that to say, facts and reality are more left leaning by nature. Given many religious folks will deny nature's history for their spiritual beliefs.
reality has a well known left-wing bias
No, it's just that the right-wing has become accustomed to lying it's ass off to get what it wants.
And in the left Lemmy communities is known as 'nato-pedia' for his Western pov bias
User survey shows the editors hold left-wing and right-wing beliefs about equally
all i found was that self-responses are preponderantly left/center-left: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-04-25/Recent_research
![Political position of Wikipedia users, based on responses to the survey question "In political matters, people talk of 'the left' and 'the right.' How would you place your views on this scale, generally speaking? [You position on the left-right scale]" [sic], with the answer hint "The scale goes from 1 (left) to 10 (right)." Visualization of data from: Cruciani, Caterina; Joubert, Léo; Jullien, Nicolas; Mell, Laurent; Piccione, Sasha; Vermeirsche, Jeanne (2023-12-01), Surveying Wikipedians: a dataset of users and contributors’ practices on Wikipedia in 8 languages doi:10.34847/nkl.4ecf4u8m, see also m:Research:Surveying readers and contributors to Wikipedia (June/July 2023 survey of Wikipedia readers and contributors in 8 languages)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Political_position_of_Wikipedia_users_%282023_Wikipedia_survey%29.png/960px-Political_position_of_Wikipedia_users_%282023_Wikipedia_survey%29.png)
Will he start working for conervapedia now?
Good work by wikipedia. Always good to get the trash out.
Accusing a site of being left bias then turning it into a right wing shithole has, sadly, worked time and time again. Let's hope Wikipedia can keep holding out.
This is fine.
But the optics are important. There’s a concerted effort to delegitimize Wikipedia as an information source, as it’s not in Big Tech’s control.
And they don’t have to kill it. They just have to make it less popular than, say, Grokipedia, and every headline like this is a step in that direction.
Hence I have very scientifically minded family who are already saying some strange things about Wikipedia.
This headline isn't a bad headline. The article seems to be pretty well balanced, and leaves plenty siding with Wikipedia. It even mentions another news article that DOES have a bad headline:
Sanger has spent more than a decade criticizing Wikipedia for what he claims is an ideological, left-wing bias on a variety of topics, and on X has framed this recent ban as further proof of everything that’s wrong with Wikipedia. The New York Post took that bait and last night published an article with the headline “Left-leaning Wikipedia blocked founder from editing site—after he campaigned to make it more balanced.”
I notice Grokipedia is getting put up more on search results even on duckduckgo.
Yep.
That’s because DDG is Bing. To be blunt, it’s search is kinda terrible.
Sander hasn't been a part of the Wikipedia project since 2002.
He launched a competing project - Citizendium - which flopped. Also, the Digital Universe Encyclopedia web project, which went nowhere. And Encyclopedia of Earth which also failed to launch. WatchKnowLearn and Infobitt did a bit better, but neither became household names.
Basically, he's been bouncing in and out of middling projects for the better part of 25 years. And I suspect this string of failures hasn't been particularly good for his ego.
That is very much the definition of snowflake behaviour.
I read his "contributions" to the Gaza genocide article's talk page, along with the equally mealy-mouthed hand-wringing of Jimmy Wales. Total bellends both, although for different reasons. Jimmy is pressured into being an annoying grandstanding dickhead by Israeli interests, whereas Larry's pressured into being an annoying grandstanding dickhead by his childhood.
Hmm I wonder if Sanger knew better. I wonder if there was any smoking gun posted online that would prove this.
“Wikipedians are now debating whether my proposed WikiProject Intellectual Diversity should be permitted to become an official WikiProject (club/group of editors),” Sanger said on X on Friday and linked to the Wikipedia talk page about the issue. “Lots opposed. Also lots in favor.”
“Can I still join the movement?” one person replied to Sanger on X.
“Let's just say that if I answer that question one way or another, the playground moms who rule Wikipedia might block me,” Sanger responded.
shocked_pikachu
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
