House Republicans Investigate Wikipedia Over Alleged Bias
Technology
56
Beiträge
37
Kommentatoren
50
Aufrufe
-
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.
Fuck right off you POS Trumper
-
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.
Fucking worthless lying Trumper
-
This post did not contain any content.
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 don’t make the rules for NY colleges.
Bait used to be believable
-
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.
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?
-
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?
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.
-
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.
But the sources are listed below on Wikipedia, not in lemmy.
-
But the sources are listed below on Wikipedia, not in lemmy.
True Lemmy will not let you post anything from certain news sources. Wiki people can cite anything so Lemmy is more limiting to narrow its users information.
-
I don’t make the rules for NY colleges.
No way you made it out of college
-
This post did not contain any content.
What law does that break?
Edit: Hey downvoter. If you aren't stalking why don't you include a comment on how you think having a bias is in anyway illegal.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Even if it was biased: so fucking what? Freedom of speech means they can do jack shit about that anyway.
-
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.
Right and we also use lemmy, but we still weigh and judge what we read here or at least we should. And we should do the same for Wikipedia, even though I would argue that Wikipedia has higher epistemic standards than Lemmy. The point being, the openness of these platforms is a quality on its own. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it is far from terrible.
-
No way you made it out of college
Yep, graduated!
-
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.
Nothing stopped someone writing a bogus paper claiming an MMR vaccine causes autism. It being a paper likely gave it undue credit to people who were convinced by it, not that they read it..
-
I'd have to say pre-Nixon
Back in they day when being a Republican meant more than obstructionism and authoritarianism.
-
Republican leaders are leeches that society would be better off without
Yup, they need to just drop dead
-
I'd have to say pre-Nixon
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
Reality has a known liberal bias.
They'd investigate reality, but that'd be science, which they are opposed to.
