First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Wikipedia
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/18/09 , edited 6/18/09
As some of us discovered in another thread there are apparently liberal and conservative spin-offs of Wikipedia under the pretense that there’s a political bias. Some say Wikipedia is slanted in favor of the liberals, others say it favors conservatives. To be honest, I don’t know what either side is talking about. So far the only bias I’ve noticed is one in favor of Israel. Now, it’s not a reliable source of information. Sure, it cites it source, but if you go through and look at the sources you’ll see many of them aren’t really reliable themselves. Here's a link to the Khaled Mashal wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Mashal

Khaled is the head of the terrorist organization called Hamas, and so far most of the information on there seems okay to me. Now go to sources 14 and 15 and tell me what you see. Yeah, they cited videos on YouTube. So, Wiki is not reliable for information. It doesn’t even know the difference between a respectable source and a laughable source. There’s a reason you can’t cite Wikipedia for scholarly papers.
114152 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / in a world where...
Offline
Posted 6/18/09
lol we all know its not reliable, we r taught this in school at least wen i was in school
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 6/18/09

Later, on February 13, 2006, Mashal declared that Hamas would end the armed struggle against Israel if Israel withdrew to its pre-1967 borders and recognized Palestinian rights such as the "right of return".[13] He reaffirmed this stance in a March 5, 2008 interview with Al Jazeera English,[14][15] citing Hamas's signing of the 2005 Cairo Declaration and the National Reconciliation Document, and denied any rejectionist stance.[16]


Then they cited the Al Jazeera interview....

lol I don't see the problem there.

Wikipedia is good for quick and general information on a topic.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/18/09
Wikipedia is very liberally biased imo. It also has a bias against Christians from what I've seen personally. I know that this site is conservative (hence the name), but it does cite 160 references to liberal bias in wikipedia. http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia

I'll cite example number 132 from the list

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[230]
"I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.[231] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
The owner himself says there is a liberal bias.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 6/18/09
Lol it is just me but anything mainstream and talked about a lot I dont trust that source. I like to stick to da underground.
21223 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/18/09
Well, duh.
Posted 6/18/09
It's the internet....when it's important I'll stick to the real life library.
Posted 6/18/09
derp durr hurr relying on wikipidea for information lol, morons are so easy to fool nowadays
2982 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Utah
Offline
Posted 6/18/09
The best thing to do at school is look up penis on wikipedia it isn't banned
636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Andromeda
Offline
Posted 6/18/09
Well, it is true that there is bias in Wikipedia, while Wikipedia stated the Neutral point of view as a fundamental principle. But the writers there are human beings after all., who tend to express what they think is right however many volunteers try their best to keep the vast quantity of articles neutral.

Now regarding to the article about Khaled Mashal .
First of all, If you notice at the top of the page, it says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" Have you tried to point out the bias.

Second, I don't understand your point about the videos which recorded by Aljazeera. Is it because they've been uploaded to youtube, they can't be a sources?. or Because of Aljazeera?
I understand you may disagree with Aljazeera and I do in some topics, but I don't understand why you can't hear from them. Is it possible that they may change your view?
for me, sometimes, I'm willing to hear from Fox News or CNN in some topics because I want to know what the other thinks, God gave us brains, we know that media often does not broadcast the whole truth or even the truth itself, but we have to seek it in all possible ways.

I wonder, In general , is it necessary for sources to be neutral to have a neutral article?
Posted 6/18/09
you have to be really stupid to rely on wikipedia for your source of information =T
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 6/18/09
Wikipedia is great for first info on subject, and maybe references since it usually has lot of links to outside sources. And yes, it is biased. For example, sections about WW I is completely wrong. There are not any historical untruths, but the truth is very warped. Like reasons for war, casualty lists, etc etc. Then I saw that all those sections were written mostly by british, so the reason was explained.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 6/18/09

digs wrote:

Wikipedia is very liberally biased imo. It also has a bias against Christians from what I've seen personally. I know that this site is conservative (hence the name), but it does cite 160 references to liberal bias in wikipedia. http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia

I'll cite example number 132 from the list

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[230]
"I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.[231] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
The owner himself says there is a liberal bias.


That's a nice way to twist words around. While he did state that the editors overall have more liberal views, he does not say that they embed those views into their articles. It is possible to write objectively about a subject while still having certain biased feelings toward it, without adding those feelings into the article.

Also, simply stating that Wikipedia has a liberal bias makes it sound like its bias is as extreme as Liberapedia or Conservapedia.

I don't know about the more "serious" articles (i.e historical articles or current events, which are usually what people would have biased views about) but overall Wikipedia seems very objective to me. But I don't use it very often so my observations may not be worth much.
17562 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 6/18/09
yeah. . .
13202 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 6/18/09
oh well
I still use it lol
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.