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.
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 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.
Will he start working for conervapedia now?
Good work by wikipedia. Always good to get the trash out.
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.
Or gets swallowed by a sinkhole, eiþer would be fine.
Well, the poor sinkhole would then suffer from very bad digestion issues, and that is not something to joke about!
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I like how we all make comments for chat now, but there's probably only like what a thousand people who comment on lemmy regularly?
We have no idea how many lurkers, with registered accounts or not.
We are more numerous than you think
31 comments in 16 months, you ain't kidding.
👍
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.
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.
It's a little sad that he's still messing with that site. It's been years since I've used it for anything. It's incomplete and heavily biased.
How is it biased? Biased towards truth? If you have proof of it lying or misrepresenting something, then you just have to prove it and I am sure they or you will be able to change it.
They will not let you change it. They gate keep who gets to edit things intensely.
For good reason, there is a lot of interest in implementing actual bias.
Israel/Palestine/Gaza is examples of this.
Do you have any examples of bias? Or wrong information?
Wikipedia is a great start point. You read the wiki, then check the references. Just like reading the news, you should never take one source at face value! Engage your ✨ CRITICAL THINKING ✨
Wikipedia is pointless. You can ask any AI your question and ask for sources. It's more reliable than wikipedia.
Then contribute to it. Bring receipts and evidence. Those are the table stakes. Without that, you'll get laughed out like the clown you are. You don't bring hearsay and prejudice to an evidence fight.
Wikipedia has its problems, but 'balance' is not near the top of the list.
Biased how?
Reality has a well known liberal bias
That is very much the definition of snowflake behaviour.
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.
