Comment

Comment on House Republicans Investigate Wikipedia Over Alleged Bias

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

zerofk@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
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.

source
- tabular@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  How often?
  
  source
I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
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.

source
- tabular@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  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 more reason, more logic, more evidence.
  
  source
- balder1991@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  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.
  
  source
- jali67@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  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 variable sources?
  
  source
- Spazz@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Fucking worthless lying Trumper
  
  source