More liberal censorship

[Jefferson]

Uncovered: Wikipedia’s Leftist Ties And Its Censorship Of The Facts

Despite the protests of countless experts claiming Wikipedia is often not a reliable source of information, it remains perhaps the most influential and one of the most-visited websites on the planet. But exactly who is really behind the world’s largest source of information? And does their agenda, if one exists, ever shine through their supposedly “unbiased” wiki pages?

After hearing of and experiencing incidents in which undeniable facts were removed from the site because editors at Wikipedia claimed the researchers who uncovered them were “not reliable”—which is, of course, irrelevant if the facts are demonstrably true—I began to research the prominent website’s leadership. That endeavor revealed that despite the site’s claims of being a neutral source of information, many of those leading Wikipedia have intimate ties to far-left organizations or openly support liberal policies and candidates.

To read the rest of the article click HERE.

 

[TracerBullet]

"In 2012, for example, Northwestern University’s Shane Greenstein and the University of Southern California’s Feng Zhu analyzed more than 70,000 Wikipedia articles published over 10 years related to U.S. politics to determine whether any bias existed in the material. Greenstein and Feng found there was a distinct bias favoring Democrats and their positions."

"Reality has a well known liberal bias." Stephen Bolbert

 

[Jefferson]

"Reality has a well known liberal bias." Stephen Bolbert

Speaking of reality...

Definition of a conservative: "A liberal who has been mugged by reality." - Irving Kristol

 

[rexlunae]

Speaking of reality...

Definition of a conservative: "A liberal who has been mugged by reality." - Irving Kristol

That definitely isn't the author's problem. Didn't any of that article give you the slightest hesitation? Do you really need someone to point out the problems with it?

How about this: Did you notice how the author left unsaid what exactly the "undeniable facts" were that were removed from Wikipedia? It's sounds like a quote straight from any number of pseudo-scientific sources. And the complaint demonstrates ignorance, likely willful, of Wikipedia's stated policy, which requires that material be well-sourced to stay on the page. No matter how "undeniable" a "fact" is alleged to be, if you don't have a source for it, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

 

[Jefferson]

Did you notice how the author left unsaid what exactly the "undeniable facts" were that were removed from Wikipedia?

He stated it very clearly and provided his source. From the article:

For instance, climate alarmist William Connolley repeatedly removed factual material from Wikipedia pages in 2010 and earlier because it didn’t support his belief in man-caused catastrophic global warming

 

[rexlunae]

He stated it very clearly and provided his source. From the article:

Is that the "undeniably factual" material he was talking about? Because, in addition to being disconnected in space and time as well as train of thought from the claim, and it's neither undeniable nor factual, and in places, it's downright absurd. Like the completely unsourced claim of trillions of dollars driving a "scam", corrupting scientists, etc. It uses first person, talks about the author's revulsion, it's really more of a rant than anything else. There's basically nothing redeeming about it, and it flaunts WP's actual clearly-stated editing policies. It deserved to be reverted and treated as spam.

 

[shagster01]

The article clearly states that liberal bias is not as prevalent as it once was on Wikipedia. Shouldn't this thread be called, "less liberal censorship?"