I appreciate that wikipedia has been helpful to me through the years. But I dislike that they have an agenda and will occasionally print false facts to and suppress other facts to push that agenda.
@TheColossalTitan, wait on that true? How so?
@amorr9796, Certain articles have a ton of bias and they will silence dissenting opinions.
Check out the gamergate page for instance. It smacks of agenda.
@TheColossalTitan, ah, I, see. Now that you mention it, I think they do that with the pro-choice/pro-life thing. There's an article for pro-choice, but not one for pro-life, only anti-abortion
@TheColossalTitan, I 100% believe that. But what’s their agenda?
Most biased sources aren’t that good at hiding it. Or maybe I only look up stuff that’s not opinion prone...
@TheColossalTitan, pretty sure users create the pages, Wikipedia just hosts and keeps hooligans out
@RMB, I could be mistaken, but I would urge anyone interested to look into it. I’ve read articles from independent journalists and unaffiliated sources that suggest a lot of background manipulation to push certain narratives.
@TheColossalTitan, this is the first I ever hear about anything like this
@YodaGhostlightning , Well nobody should take my word for it. I think everyone should look into it skeptically. Nobody is infallible, despite how they portray themselves.
I could totally be wrong, but I don’t think I am.
@TheColossalTitan, I’ll drink to that
@TheColossalTitan, part of the issue is that Wikipedia isn’t some huge corp, only has a few hundred employees amongst the parent company “Wikimedia”. These employees don’t create pages, but instead largely maintain the site and answer support tickets (people reporting mistakes or purposeful misinformation). The article on acute pancreatitis didn’t pop up out of thin air, some knowledgeable user had to start it and the rest of the community fact checked it and added sources. The same goes for any article, and in fact if you don’t like the misrepresentation on Wikipedia, you are fully capable of adding an opposing article with sources and information, or amending the existing article with information from accurate and legitimate sources. Any political bias is moreso a representation of the community that has contributed to the article (younger technologically inclined people that are passionate about it) than it is to the website hosting it.
Fun fact: when Alexa is asked a question Wikipedia is one of the sources she goes to. Amazon should fund Wikipedia.
Well I know they were asking for donations for a while, what are they doing now?
I already gave them ~20 over the last year and they’re still making me feel guilty