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.
House Republicans Investigate Wikipedia Over Alleged Bias
Submitted 1 month ago by wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.nbcpalmsprings.com/2025/08/28/house-republicans-investigate-wikipedia-over-alleged-bias
Comments
compostgoblin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
original_charles@lemmy.world 1 month ago
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.
MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 1 month ago
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.
db2@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Must have been a glorious three minutes.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
Yeah, but Lincoln is dead.
Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Calling out Republicans for lies and antidemocratic behavior is not “bias”.
BigBenis@lemmy.world 1 month ago
We’re investigating private companies for bias now? Are Truth Social and Fox News next??
KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Reality has a known liberal bias.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
They’d investigate reality, but that’d be science, which they are opposed to.
Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I mean, we all know that reality has a well known liberal bias…
tabular@lemmy.world 1 month ago
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.
zerofk@lemmy.zip 1 month 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.
tabular@lemmy.world 1 month ago
How often?
I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 1 month 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.
tabular@lemmy.world 1 month 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.
balder1991@lemmy.world 1 month 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.
jali67@lemmy.zip 1 month 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?
Spazz@lemmynsfw.com 1 month ago
Fucking worthless lying Trumper
ChetManly@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I know a lot of private companies with bias… WTF
hark@lemmy.world 1 month ago
These assholes are a drain on society.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 month ago
Even if it was biased: so fucking what? Freedom of speech means they can do jack shit about that anyway.
jali67@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Anything that does not fall in line with our propaganda machine is biased or lying!!
Marshezezz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
They continue to do nothing but oppress and waste (steal) money
jali67@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Republican leaders are leeches that society would be better off without
Marshezezz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 weeks ago
Yup, they need to just drop dead
space@reddthat.com 1 month ago
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.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
Science and history also has a bias that being people like them are wrong
comador@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Do as I say, not as I do!
LoafedBurrito@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
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.
salty_chief@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Wikipedia is not accepted by colleges as a reliable source to cite. When you are writing a paper/essay. That should tell you that it isn’t a reliable source for information.
SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That’s ridiculous. It’s not allowed because it’s not a primary source of information. It’s a great jumping off point for knowledge and if you need to cite something you can just look through its sources at the bottom of each page.
salty_chief@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I don’t make the rules for NY colleges.
Goodman@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
It’s true that it is not generally accepted for writing a paper or essay, but that does not mean that the information is completely unreliable. While I’m sure that Wikipedia is not perfect with regards to truth, it is more accessible, democratized and readable than many primary sources or peer reviewed articles. Those properties have a lot of value by themselves. Would you not agree?
salty_chief@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I mean it is comparative to someone saying everything on lemmy is correct because people believe it true. Wiki is a open source so anyone can add to it. Anyone with. Strong opinion or faulty information. Basically just a collection of open source info without regulations.
tabular@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I’m not writing a paper or essay… so my standards are different.
Conversely I’ve tried following a paper to implement an algorithm and suddenly found it used math terns that I couldn’t find an explanation for and unlike the rest of the paper it didn’t explain shit.
balder1991@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I’m not writing a paper or essay… so my standards are different.
It actually shouldn’t matter in this case. Wikipedia isn’t a “source” of anything, it simply states facts and backs them with sources (though not always, many articles will have a “missing source” for many paragraphs). It’s also public, so anyone can add things without it being peer reviewed.
So if you actually care about whether some information is correct, you should check what is the source. And if something is wrong you can do your part and change the text to be more neutral or better phrased. Edits that improve pages are almost always gonna stick, after all it’s all ant’s work to update/fix the huge number of badly written stuff in there.
Spazz@lemmynsfw.com 1 month ago
Fuck right off you POS Trumper
MehBlah@lemmy.world 1 month ago
What law does that break?
redfox@infosec.pub 1 month ago
Good thing they have all the millions of more important things solved than Wikipedia 😡
mhague@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
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.
db2@lemmy.world 1 month ago
“Stop accurately documenting my actual behavior!” - House Repugnicans