They are just trying to annoy people and micromanage any left leaning or non partisan organization so they give up and just submit to the nazi’s.
Don’t do it, nothing good comes from giving the nazi’s what they want.
We’re investigating private companies for bias now? Are Truth Social and Fox News next??
Reality has a known liberal bias.
They’d investigate reality, but that’d be science, which they are opposed to.
It’s funny, because they clearly have the idea in their head that Wikipedia is a single organization capable of an ideological bias. When if you take a single look at some talk pages, it would become clear very quickly that Wikipedia is built on people vociferously disagreeing and bringing sources to make the information presented ever more credible and unbiased.
Wikipedia is built on people vociferously disagreeing and bringing sources to make the information presented ever more credible and unbiased.
Yeah, that’s why they are upset with it.
Even if it was biased: so fucking what? Freedom of speech means they can do jack shit about that anyway.
“Stop accurately documenting my actual behavior!” - House Repugnicans
This is slop. Not necessarily AI generated, but definitely dumbass-generated.
Literally not one ounce of effort. No digging into vague studies Republicans are talking about. No overview of Wikipedia’s current policy. No questions posed to someone who knows about Wikipedia and/or government attempts to control the narrative.
It’s not even a good thing that the article only tells you the core facts. Too much goes unsaid. No context might as well be a hallucination from an AI for how much it bridges the gap between what you think and what reality contains.
Calling out Republicans for lies and antidemocratic behavior is not “bias”.
Anything that does not fall in line with our propaganda machine is biased or lying!!
No they aren’t. House republicans can’t read. They will just say it’s biased and try to force it further right from wherever it currently is without checking.
I know a lot of private companies with bias… WTF
I remember a time when telling the truth wasn’t considered bias by the Republican party. It was the same time when, “conservative speech” didn’t mean lies, misinformation, and hate speech.
Yeah, but Lincoln is dead.
Must have been a glorious three minutes.
You can? I certainly cannot.
Pre-Reagan
I’d have to say pre-Nixon
Back in they day when being a Republican meant more than obstructionism and authoritarianism.
I mean, we all know that reality has a well known liberal bias…
These assholes are a drain on society.
The answer to any bias in Wikipedia is to cite more verifiable sources, use better sound reasoning and update when newer evidence is found.
The answer is probably not the wishful thinking of one of USA’s unrepresentative main parties. To learn about public misrepresentation in government check out a page from Wikipedia.
They don’t accept verifiable sources. A hundred peer reviewed papers don’t weigh up against a single dissenting voice if that one voice agrees with their views.
How often?
To play devil’s advocate, an issue arises when there AREN’T more verifiable sources. If someone makes an outlandish claim like “Billy Joel used to wash his ass with crisco” and cites a dubious interview, it’s hard to find a source that definitively states Billy Joel DIDN’T wash his ass with crisco. Even worse, is if there was an actual, verified instance of one time where Billy Joel washed his ass with crisco. That may have been the only time he ever did it, and it may have been done as a joke or something like that, but now we have an interview saying he did it regularly, and an example of when he did. Now it’s a lot harder to disprove.
I feel gross defending Republican talking points, now I need to go take a shower. Maybe wash my ass with crisco.
That sounds like a generic issue one should expect. I wouldn’t consider this a specific party’s talking point until they suggest a solution that isn’t just better reasoning, better logic, better evidence.
Republicans call anything that does not align with their billionaire funded think tanks and knockoff media sources fake or lying. I mean they literally replaced AP with some knockoff bullshit media source for the White House. You think this is about verifiable sources?
Removed by mod
There’s no problem in citing in that an interview cited fact X. Then if the issue is discussed, some other reputable news sources might say it’s likely not true and you can source them too.
When you present the facts as they are instead of trying to portray them as absolute truths, you’re doing the right work for Wikipedia.
Even scientific facts aren’t “the truth”, but our current understanding of things. Wikipedia isn’t about what’s the ultimate truth, it’s about documenting and organizing information so that people can get a grasp on subjects.
