[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 40 KB, 517x593, images (4).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14839144 No.14839144 [Reply] [Original]

How biased is Wikipedia?

>> No.14839154

>>14839144
100% unadulterated propaganda just like any other public-facing resource.

>> No.14839192

>>14839144
No more biased than 4chan

>> No.14839195

>>14839154
This

>> No.14839207

>>14839144
Math on Wikipedia is ridiculously biased. Every article is either written from a si hole applications viewpoint, and if you interested in some concept’s other applications then you are SOL. The alternative is many articles have researchers trying to edit in citations of their own shit papers in order to SEO themselves in to relevance.

>> No.14839208

>>14839207
Si hole applications -> single application’s

>> No.14839209

>>14839144
There's a reason even high school assignments don't accept it.
It is mostly okay though, but it is notoriously bad about current events as they unfold. I was actually in the middle of one such event and wiki page was absolutely opposite of what was happening
If you think 4channel jannies are annoying, you will start worshipping them after contact with wikipedia regular contributors.

>> No.14839213

>>14839209
I’m not so concerned about Wikipedia’s politics bias because everyone already knows that part is biased. I’m more concerned with the stem biases notes here >>14839207 because people are under the impression that science/math isn’t being gamed just as much in Wikipedia, where it’s usually gained much worse because it requires much more training to quality control.

>> No.14839244

Communism is heavily biased, and always concludes with arguments that makes communism win.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Anti-communism also have conclusions in favor of communism. It's never a criticism and period, there's a response for every argument.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communism

There's a fucking anti anti-communism page and no counter argument
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_anti-communism

>> No.14839257

>>14839213
I noticed the same on physics, they tend to value indeterminism way more than determinism.

>> No.14839261

>>14839257
>I noticed the same on physics, they tend to value indeterminism way more than determinism.
LOL. The absolute state of determinitard mental illness.

>> No.14839275

>>14839144
Insanely biased.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché
Even on a page like this, they barely discuss any Leftist examples of thought terminating cliches, like Obama’s “Affordable Care Act”, Bush’s “Patriot Act”, Mao’s “Great Leap Forward”, Illinois “Safe-T Act”, Biden’s “Build Back Batter”, etc.
It has slowly become one of the worst websites for any information.

>> No.14839280
File: 439 KB, 577x587, wikiman.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14839280

>100% unadulterated propaganda
>Wikipedia is ridiculously biased
>If you think 4channel jannies are annoying, you will start worshipping them after contact with wikipedia regular contributors.
>people are under the impression that science/math isn’t being gamed just as much in Wikipedia, where it’s usually gamed much worse

>> No.14839282

>>14839275
Is this bait? What's wrong with that article?

>> No.14839284

>>14839144
Marginally less biased than Conservapedia.

>> No.14839360

You dumb faggots will tear me apart for this, but Wikipedia's neutrality policy works fine for the most part.

If you look at talk pages on some topics that tend to get called out for not being neutral discussions normally go like this
>"hey your article says niggers are just as intelligent as wypipo and its debunked wheres the other view???"
>"do you have any sources we can integrate here"
>"yea here *links literally twitter or stormfront forums with schizo ranting*"
>"no we need something reputable, look at this list of acceptable sources"
>"b-but the guy on twitter is an expert on nigger genetics and wrote the bell curve"
>"even as that may be, its a primary source and youre engaging in your own research, we need something external that covered it"
>"WOW I CANT BELIEVE HOW WIKIPEDIA CAN BE SO BIASED!!!"
They have to set a standard for what they can consider somewhat neutral and reliable, and using secondary sources for that purpose is the best compromise there is. Some random retard on the internet using tweets to construct an argument doesn't work either because it's literally a random retard without verifiable credentials, in contrast to what Wikipedia's reliable sources are (well, should be) constructed from.
I am not saying these secondary sources are perfect, but I've rarely if ever seen arguments going in the direction of discrediting these sources versus people discussing that something they provide and doesn't constitute fucking Twitter should be accepted as a source, and more often than not that even results in really dumb shit being properly redacted or decent discussions. Quite a few "reliable sources" say Kiwi Farms did shit they weren't even involved in, for example, and the Talk page has editors pointing out that kind of shit.

Yes, some admins and editors very fucking clearly have a bias and edit shit in their favor, but let's not pretend this isn't the case in similar projects or even academia either, especially outside of hard science.

>> No.14839367

>>14839360
How many jabs?

>> No.14839391

>>14839261
It's sad to see how much coping is within the indeterminists. Superdeterminism debunked it all, the war is over, just accept it.

>> No.14839397

>>14839391
So when you say wikipedia articles are "biased" you mean they don't mention your unfalsifiable fringe theory enough in articles about quantum mechanics?

>> No.14839414
File: 209 KB, 1080x1645, FYy1AtIXwAAzJ6L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14839414

>>14839360
https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/

>> No.14839510
File: 3.45 MB, 750x668, that_s_racist.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14839510

>>14839360
the n word is racist

>> No.14840503

>>14839144
>>14839154
>>14839192
>>14839207
>>14839209
>>14839244
>>14839275
>>14839280
>>14839284
yeah guys, wikipedia's pages on abelian groups, reductive amination, ultraviolet lithography and magnetohydrodynamics are just so biased and politically biased.. i can't believe how anyone reads that political hogwash.

>> No.14840602

>>14840503
>yeah guys, wikipedia's pages on abelian groups, reductive amination, ultraviolet lithography and magnetohydrodynamics are
completely unreadable unless you already have an advanced degree in the subject.

>> No.14840626

>>14839360
So in other words, they are as biased as the media. Do you believe that the media is biased or are they also fair and impartial to any particular agenda?
Also I would say the standard of only accepting secondary sources is stupid. It ENSURES that your articles are biased.
I've seen debates on Wikipedia about a particular person or political group where the head representative's statements about a group's positions are not considered adequate because he is part of the group and therefore biased but a journalist's statements about them are neutral, therefore the journalist's statements win even if it contradicts what the group actually says themselves. It's completely absurd.

>> No.14840691

>>14839144
A made up twitter rumor which can be proven false with evidence gets reported by """journalists""" as fact, wikipedia then christens said rumor as fact citing the journalist article as the source and ignores all conflicting evidence as it is "original research"

>> No.14840809

>>14840602
good

>> No.14840833

>>14840503
>the only bias that exists is political bias!
Go back to twitter

>> No.14840971

the ultimate proof that Wiki’s science editors are shills is documented here:
https://quillette.com/2022/07/18/cognitive-distortions/

there was an organized clique of Wikipedians, none of whom have any actual expertise in psychometrics or paychology, to ban whole swathes of scientific literature based on them making a non-scientific argument that that swathe of literature is “fringe” according to their definition. and if they deem it “fringe” then they just ban that whole field of research and any other editor who disagrees with them

this same clique deleted the WP article on “Ashkenazi IQ”. straight up deleted. why? because “this article is bad”. so just remove a scientifically established fact because they don’t like the article’s style.

honestly i think both the Race&IQ and Ashkenazi IQ articles were bad, but the way WP handled it was ridiculous. instead of any serious scholarship or debate or anything it amounted to like, what would happen on Twitter when a bunch of loudmouth virtue signalers shout down any discussion. really disgraceful that WP is basically as intellectually bereft as shitty social media

>> No.14841059

>>14840833
He did not say that faggot. YWNBAW, remember that.

>> No.14841203

>>14839144
Wikipedia died the second it accepted buzzfeed-tier tabloids as sources.
As for its bias, I guess people here are too young to remember the 2010's 'edit-a-thons', where a group of trannies would meet up every year and rewrite 1000's of pages at once.

>> No.14841221

>>14839144
t. wikipedia AIDS was caused by colonialism and the Black Plague was caused by climate change, so...

>> No.14841238

>>14839144
If it's completely objective with no room for subjectivity at all (i.e. networking protocols), it's pretty good. If there's even a little room for interpretation, it's incredibly biased

>> No.14841843

>>14839360
So they give you a list of sources? So would the schizo conspiracy theorists and you wouldn't be able to find a source within that that says the earth is round

>> No.14842321

>>14839360
Intresting that you decided to "btfo" a "nazi racist" by the "calm level headed liberal" in your little greentext.

>> No.14842919 [DELETED] 
File: 480 KB, 750x1018, sangger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14842919

even the website's founder has completely disavowed using wikipedia other than as a punchline

>> No.14843378

>>14839414
You may not like it, but this is what peak based looks like.

>> No.14843408

>>14839207
Wikipedia is filtered by uptight twats hellbent on their edits being the final version. They fucking hate other people fixing the article. They need shooting for being V12 twin turbo loser dorks.

>> No.14843445

>>14839209
>you will start worshipping them after contact with wikipedia regular contributors.
Know what you mean. I fixed an obvious error (my first and most likely last time) and was pushed aside like trash as it seemed, so a cunt could finalise my edit even more formally. Like, fuck you i fixed the main issue and to a good degree , and you're storming in here like captain cuntbag to the rescue to polish it off and to make out you've done it all.

Imagine desperate deprived runts but on a power trip on the backstage with a canvas and paint holder. That's wiki regular contributors.

>> No.14843737

>>14840503
>yeah guys, wikipedia's pages on abelian groups, reductive amination, ultraviolet lithography and magnetohydrodynamics are just so biased and politically biased.. i can't believe how anyone reads that political hogwash.
You might not think so because you have no area of expertise, but when you do you'll find that the wikipedia pages on it are usually phenomenally wrong.

I've found pages on areas in my emphasis that have outright lies in them (such as on who originated a certain concept, or falsely attributed quotes from a book or paper) or which cite discredited 50-year-old scholarship because they're written by non-academics who have no access to journals. It's truly a dismal place to go if you want any real information, and correcting the fraud there leads to accusations of "original research" or other hogwash.

>> No.14843741

>>14843408
This exactly. I've had well-sourced scholarly edits undone because a non-academic without journal access was unable to confirm my content because it was in books and papers they couldn't afford to read. They're a joke.

>> No.14843898

>>14839144
Its not that its biased, its more that its bad, unhelpful and at times wrong. Especially for contemporary math.

>> No.14845002 [DELETED] 

wikipedia is fake and gay

>> No.14845704
File: 228 KB, 887x844, philip cross affair.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14845704

>>14839144
Depends on the topic, but English Wikipedia is horribly biased in favor of NATO and Western imperialism and think tanks.
If you're a prominent critic of US war crimes, chances are Philip Cross or another account like his (which is likely multiple people working for an "edit farm" or something) will edit your page dozens of times, like clockwork, to try and discredit you and insert all kinds of smears and labels like cOnSpIrAcY tHeOrIsT.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/

https://popularresistance.org/phillip-cross-the-mystery-wikipedia-editor-targeting-anti-war-sites/

I consider it a good resource for a lot of things, but not for geopolitics

>> No.14845713

Wikipedia is mostly unbiased, the "propaganda" is usually workable with and the accurate points/documents can be found out. I'm actually Mega Man X.

>> No.14845731

>>14845704
Oh yeah, and at one point in 2018 someone tried to stir the pot by creating a Wikipedia article on Philip Cross and the account's activities.
They got perma banned for creating the article.
So the site's higher ups seem to be perfectly aware of what Philip Cross type editors are doing, and they allow it. It's not something that just flies under their radar

>> No.14845746

>>14845704
>If you're a prominent critic of US war crimes
then you're a faggot who would greatly benefit from a hellfire missile down your cum hole

>> No.14845763

>>14845746
So if it was a situation like 2002 again, you would be fine with the articles on people saying "No, Iraq actually doesn't have WMDs" getting astroturfed to death?
Think your compass might be broken

>> No.14845802

>>14845763
Iraq actually had WMDs. They got trucked to Syria where Assad used them on the battlefield. Try harder.

>> No.14845811

>>14839144
It's a social network. The "contributors" are tight cliques of ideologically aligned redditors, and they *will* delete wrongthink, however well supported.

>> No.14845815

>>14845802
>They got trucked to Syria where Assad used them on the battlefield.
Is this the new NPC programming? hahahaha

>> No.14845826

>>14845815
>According to reports from the previous UN inspection agency, UNSCOM, Iraq produced 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and sarin; nearly 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells, with chemical agents, are still unaccounted for.

>> No.14845831

>>14845826
They were found + disposed of in Iraq (sadly by unprotected US troops). A guy I know has health symptoms from having to inspect and guard leaking stockpiles without proper PPE while he was in the sandbox.

>> No.14845857

>>14845831
>are still unaccounted for.

>> No.14845922

>>14845857
They didn't publicize it because it would have proved Bush right. The rest are 100% buried in the desert just like the others. Some dirt farmer is going to die of VX poisoning in 10 years and you might hear about an aid program for them by UNICEF or something.

Anyway it still doesn't make the white helmets lies true. The OPCW commission found that no chemical attacks had taken place in Syria.

>> No.14845957

>>14845922
>The OPCW commission found that no chemical attacks had taken place in Syria.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity

>> No.14845971

>>14845957
UN testimony by the OPCW boots on the ground says they lied about the results to form a political narrative for intervention.
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/09/09/syrian-white-helmets-opcw/

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/22/ian-henderson-opcw-whistleblower-un-no-chemical-attack-douma-syria/

>> No.14846021

>>14839144
>>14839414
VERY biased.
Just see their articles on perpetual motion, angular momentum, and the mass of light. Totally infected and controlled by the establishment.

>> No.14846030

>>14839144
It depends on what you look up. If it's a controversial topic about a famous person (celebrities will pay people to edit it), a topic about a current nation-state/conflict involving nation-states (taxpayers will pay intelligence agencies in their respective countries to edit it and the richest country usually gets the narrative they want), a topic about certain drugs/herbs/technologies/business practices that could harm/help profits (corporations will pay people to edit it [the pharmaceutical industry is especially well-versed at this]), or a topic about a person running for public office (super PAC's will pay people to edit it)

If it's something objective with no profit/power motive and/or potential conflict of interest it's usually pretty reliable. Even in the cases of biased articles it's usually pretty easy to tell they're unreliable based on the language used and the sources cited, so Wikipedia is still a good resource if you aren't a fucking moron and have a tightly sewn bullshit filter.

>> No.14846036

>>14846021
Hi John.

>> No.14846042

>>14839154
fpbp

>> No.14846153

>>14839144
Wikipedia is an anti-male, misandrist shithole through and through which actively tries to suppress stats of disproportionate violence against men as well as historical massacres of men
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/x3cw1f/shameful_wikipedia_article_about_violence_against/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/x0sdo6/violence_against_men_wikipedia_page_has_been/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/wud6jn/battle_of_wounded_knee_was_a_massacre_of_women/

>> No.14846554

>>14846153
go back

>> No.14846687

>>14839192
no way bro, chans are where the unvarnished TROOF is found.