House Republicans Investigate Wikipedia Over Alleged Bias
Technology
56
Beiträge
37
Kommentatoren
50
Aufrufe
-
This post did not contain any content.
I mean, we all know that reality has a well known liberal bias...
-
This post did not contain any content.
Good thing they have all the millions of more important things solved than Wikipedia
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
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.
Must have been a glorious three minutes.
-
This post did not contain any content.
They continue to do nothing but oppress and waste (steal) money
-
This post did not contain any content.
These assholes are a drain on society.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Calling out Republicans for lies and antidemocratic behavior is not "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.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Science and history also has a bias that being people like them are wrong
-
This post did not contain any content.
I know a lot of private companies with bias.... WTF
-
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?
-
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.
You can? I certainly cannot.
-
You can? I certainly cannot.
Pre-Reagan
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Anything that does not fall in line with our propaganda machine is biased or lying!!
-
They continue to do nothing but oppress and waste (steal) money
Republican leaders are leeches that society would be better off without
-
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.
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?
