5 Times Studies Proved Wikipedia’s Left-Wing Bias

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by XXJefferson#51, Nov 28, 2020.

  1. Stuart Wolfe

    Stuart Wolfe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    14,967
    Likes Received:
    11,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Shwo your research - i.e. prove your claim - that reality has a left-wing bias. Seriously - something going back a few posts could have told you. This is why I questioned your claim regarding researching your stances. This conversation has not gone on for very long.

    You're not getting it, are you? The foundation of your entire argument is that you THINK reality leans left because you THINK the left has been right more often than the right. Therefore it follows that reality conforms to political beliefs - conveniently, your own. This is hubris of the highest order. There's no real difference between a post saying "Reality has a left-wing bias." and some preacher saying "I speak for God." *mic drop*
     
  2. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already told you. There is no need for much research. It only requires you to be up to date on what is happening. Trump DID commit abuse of power. Covid 19 was NOT like the flu, Russia DID intervene in our elections in favor of Trump, HCQ does not cure Covid, .... and on and on and on... I could fill pages and pages. If you have a specific question, ask. If not... I understand. You tried, though.

    On the other hand, I made specific requests for quotes. And you refuse to provide them. Not a big surprise, given that they don't exist. So that's that.

    No! Reality doesn't conform to political beliefs. It conforms to... reality. The problem is that the right (the Trump right, at least) tried to politicize everything: Covid, Russia's attack on our electoral system, Masks, BLM, ... These are issues that we should ALL agree on. Because they are not right or left. They're just... reality.

    But Trump politicized them. And since "the prophet cannot err" his followers defended him tooth and nail. But the only way to do that is to deny reality. So they did...

    It was nice playing with you... Better luck next time.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
  3. Anansi the Spider

    Anansi the Spider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Wikipedia has become an important source of information for millions of people. Of course we should be concerned if it is bs!
     
  4. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The reality isn't biased the fact that you say that shows that your programmed.
     
  5. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's how delusions work.
     
  6. Pred

    Pred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    24,355
    Likes Received:
    17,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Left wing reality like 10s of 1000s of Trump supporters simultaneously rioting all over the country while holding BLM banners and dressed like ANTIFA?

    Left wing reality, like Trump working for Russia or that he’d start WWIII or take away women’s rights and gay rights and bring back slavery!!!

    AND Trump is the source for every Covid death, even all those in EU and Mexico and China. He is a god figure of power and influence, but ALSO an incompetent moron who can’t do anything. He is truly a god among gods!!!!

    There’s so much left wing reality it’s hard to know what’s real any more:)
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2020
  7. Hey Nonny Mouse

    Hey Nonny Mouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Is it news that you shouldn't believe everything you read on Wikipedia? Anyone can edit it.

    That's hardly like bias in a news outlet, which presents itself as being objective.
     
  8. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I said, reality has a left wing bias. And fantasies tend to have a right-wing bias.

    And I couldn't have hoped for a better post than yours to prove my point.
     
    Hey Nonny Mouse likes this.
  9. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Facts have a well known liberal bias.
     
    Hey Nonny Mouse likes this.
  10. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @Golem We're so lucky to be in presence of a superior being that has a superior understanding of reality.

    Not really, liberals are as bigoted than religious fundamentalists.

    For religious people, you have to confront them on creationism, for left wing, you have to confront them on facts as : brain is gendered, there is morphological brain difference between races.
    In social sciences, it's even more important, and such topic are left wing taboos : lesbian victims of domestic violence, men victims of domestic violence, impact of immigration on crime rate, and so on....
    In history, we could simply mention the black legend of the inquisition.

    That kind of consideration just show the delusional ego of most left of the left wing.

    Neither the left wing or the right wing can apprehend truth, because both are dogmatic, and the best way to reach truth is through skepticism and experimental method. Basically, to reach truth, the best way is to search how we're wrong.
    The thing is, it's not what our brain do. Our brain has many bias, the main bias is confirmation bias, the bias that lead us to search validation and not invalidation of what we're our thinking. Basically, our brain would naturally prevent us to reach truth, because it's way of functionning is at the opposite of what a honnest seeking of truth would require.

    Golem is a perfect example of the random naive individual that is totally blind to his own confirmation bias, making not better that what he try to deny.

    Skepticism remain the best way to apprehend knowledge, I know that I don't know. Trying to apprehend the limit of our own ignorance.

    Skepticism can't be by nature compatible with any dogmatism, and being right or left wing are by their very nature dogmatism.
    Is one of the side more or less dogmatic by nature ? I didn't observed that, and anyway I don't care about that childish "my blue tribe is better than your red tribe".

    It's by the way impossible by nature to be a perfect skeptic, as it would require to be able to apprehend totally the quantity of our ignorance, which is obviously impossible because of the nature of said ignorance.
     
  11. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So true.
     
  12. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for your long and argumented answer.
     
  13. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First of all, you take my comment (which was similar to that of the poster you quoted) out of context. Which is to respond to a statement that Wikipedia is liberal biased. In the sense that somehow the authors (which could be just about everybody who uses it), simply adopt the liberal position, regardless of facts, because they are all liberals. Well, assuming that is true, that would mean that reality is liberal biased. Because it is true that, even though there have been mistakes (usually short-lived), Wikipedia is among the most trustworthy sources of information. So to an unsubstantiated hyperbole, the best response is a substantiated hyperbole.

    The rest of your post... sorry, but it's a bunch of general nonsense. You claim that this group or that group (except in religious groups, in which being dogmatic is a required) is "dogmatic". The statement in and of itself is extremely dogmatic. For example, if I say in a casual debate "Trump supporters are XXXX", that is obvious hyperbole. There is no way for anybody to know every Trump supporter and determine (neither by inductive nor deductive reasoning) that they are all "XXXX".

    But if you say something like "Neither the left wing or the right wing can apprehend truth, because both are dogmatic"... that cannot be dismissed as hyperbole. The topic changes to "being dogmatic" in a much stricter sense. And in that context, your statement is clearly, in and of itself, absolutely dogmatic. I'm afraid you have much to learn if you cannot understand the difference.

    As for your "skepticism" comments. I sense that you kept them vague, providing no specifics whatsoever, to avoid being rebutted. So I will also just make two general comments.

    As one of my favorite SF authors (who BTW, is a libertarian.... faaar from a liberal) said...

    "There is a distinct difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head"
    -James Randy

    We should be skeptical of many things... maybe most. But at the same time we need to be able to identify when a known fact has become so obvious that it would be foolish to deny it. If you can't do that, that's when you fall into dogmatism.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2020
  14. HurricaneDitka

    HurricaneDitka Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2020
    Messages:
    7,155
    Likes Received:
    6,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's a starting point, but not a particularly good one. But then again, neither is Google if one's desire is to find a balanced political perspective or one is seeking out unbiased sources.
     
  15. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A bias can't come only from what you says, it also come from you choose to not says or the way to present it. You can fool people by not mentionning people.

    I never pretended to be able to apprehend truth, simply because having a constant methodological way of thinking isn't possible. And obviously fixing yourself on a method is dogmatic, to be able to apprehend reality, you need a method, which can be considered as a dogm.

    Liberals can be as dogmatic than right winger, when you interrogate them on the right topics, such as domestic violence or biological differences between men and women. There is strictly no difference on that point between right winger and liberals, as they would dogmatically refute facts as it doesn't fit their view of the world, what is different is on what they're dogmatic. And it's simply because our brain, whatever is our political orientation, doesn't stand cognitive dissonance.
    What would differ is also the way of justificating that dogmatism, for right winger it would be "because big sky daddy said so" and for left winger, they would use cheap morale as "it's sexist" even if it's true. And that's the way they try to impose their one thousand gender fantasy on the rest of the world, by using cheap morale, even if their dogm is more hallucinated than any religion.
    I suppose that religious people get less more on my nerve because I think that in the end it's less hypocrite to use "because god said so" than trying to persecute people by calling them people, the fact I don't have to deal with them on a regular manner help also.

    The bearded magician ? It's not Randi ?

    We simply can't as nobody as either the energy or the time and it would require to trust some intellectual authorities.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2020
  16. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No idea how that changes anything I said. BTW, do you understand how Wikipedia works?

    Just checking...


    Me neither. Except that includes things like "Neither the left wing or the right wing can apprehend truth, because both are dogmatic". That sounds to me like one of those "truths" you try to separate yourself from. My education has focused heavily on the sciences. And, for that reason, I understand the difference between "truth" and "certainty"

    No idea what that means. You fix yourself in a method when whatever you are doing calls for it, and you don't when it doesn't. Would you consider flying an airplane "dogmatic" because pilots are required to follow a standard fixed "method"? Maybe they are, but... so what? This would be one situation in which "dogmas" are desirable. And there are more.

    I sense that your statements about dogmas are dogmatic.

    Of course! So?

    This is true mostly because classifications like "right" and "left" are purely subjective made-up concepts, the meaning of which can change in a heartbeat.

    I still don't know what you mean. You would need to show examples. I would consider it sexist to say "A women's place is in the kitchen". But that's in general terms with no context. If a woman is a professional chef, her place objectively is in the kitchen. Therefore it's true and therefore it's not sexist.

    BTW, your insistence in that right wingers do this, and left wingers do that, sounds pretty dogmatic to me. I believe that right wingers are wrong most of the time. That's an opinion, of course. One that I can substantiate in most cases. But I don't make any claims (except when using obvious hyperbole, like the liberal/facts bias example) that apply in such general terms as yours seem to imply.

    Impose their... what? Please don't tell me you are one of those that confuses "gender" with "sexual preference". I apologize if that not what you meant. But, if that's the case, please explain what you do mean.

    Correct. My mistake. I copied pasted it from a website and didn't notice that they had spelled it that way. My bad for not checking.

    We trust "experts", not "authorities" (though we might call them that in a colloquial discussion). And only the ones that have a track record of usually being right. Otherwise we'd be falling into the "nihilistic" trap. Hopefully that's not what you meant.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2020
    Hey Nonny Mouse likes this.
  17. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Truth is an abstraction. From a scientific point of view, a theory is considered as valid as long it hasn't been disproved. By nature of truth and ignorance, we can't know when we're actually wrong or not, however there is facts on what we can doubt less or more.

    Politics and "hard" sciences are two different things. In science, you can isolate a fact, and test it, which could enable you to improve the theory you have on fact, for instance the behavour of an atom. Such thing isn't possible in politics and many other fields since there is too much variable to deal with, then you have to use another method.
    Piloting an airplane is quite a simple variable, and you can test it through the number of accidents led by a method or not, from a practical point of view planes are one of the surest way of travelling.

    The question is : can we resume a problem to a simple few variables ? In politics, we can't.

    It mean that we can approach something such as politics as a science or pilot training. If methodological doubt is necessary, we can hardly simply verify an hypothesis, as checking pilots records, even if history can give us insights.

    Three examples : men tend to have on average larger brain than women, men and women brain aren't wired on similar ways (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-25198063),

    Yes by the way I had to use dogms, nobody can except that, but I try to not conform myself to a way of thinking to conform as a group would think, such a political parti, or at least I try to.

    No I don't confuse those.


    Correct. My mistake. I copied pasted it from a website and didn't notice that they had spelled it that way. My bad for not checking.

    That's why I mean by authorities, because there is too much "experts" that aren't that much "experts".
     
  18. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes but I wasn't the one who injected the word "truth" in this discussion. It's a word I try to avoid.

    All sciences (hard or soft) use the same scientific method. No difference from an epistemological point of view. But off-topic here. Piloting an airplane is not science. My comment was about your statement that "fixing yourself in a method is dogmatic". Pilots fix themselves in a method. What does calling that "dogmatic" add to the discussion?

    Liberals and conservatives think differently. But there is only one reality. If what they say is based on reality (like Wikipedia usually is) then you're golden. Doesn't matter if you're liberal or conservative. If what the OP claims were correct (and it isn't) then only liberals would be based on reality. So I simply disprove the OP by Reductio ad Absurdum. Your claim that this makes me "dogmatic" is inaccurate because you are taking my comment literally and out of context.

    I don't respond to the rest, not to disparage it, but because it's off-topic. And I have been alerted by mods several times to not go off-topic. But thanks anyway.
     
  19. Stuart Wolfe

    Stuart Wolfe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    14,967
    Likes Received:
    11,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, looky HERE:

    Looks like reality has a left-wing bias indeed - after you have left-wing people trying to edit what reality is.
     
    Pred likes this.
  20. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes. You will find that people are biased about right wing lies.
    This surprises you?
     
    AZ. likes this.
  21. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not talking of that kind of dogmatism, I'm talking of in-group dogmatism as political conformism. In the case you specify, the "dogm" of their training have proved his worth.
    Not really, sociology for instance doesn't really fit the experimental method. If we consider Popper criterium, it doesn't fit most "soft" science, as a lot of them doesn't focus that much on empirism.

    And again, you can lie on basing yourself on reality, you can induce an erroneous way of reality, not only by telling wrong fact, but by not mentionning some things, as scandals of Obama administration. That's a lie by omission.
     
  22. ImNotOliver

    ImNotOliver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Messages:
    14,692
    Likes Received:
    6,643
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do not know what the controversy is, The first encyclopedias were created to capture the knowledge of the liberal arts. The first modern encyclopedia was created in large part by the efforts of Denis Diderot. It was Diderot who first pointedly described the social divide as between those who subscribe to authority and superstition, and those who prefer empirical evidence, a very liberal opinion, to be sure.

    Encyclopedias have always been a liberal thing. You see, as conservatives have their sacred texts as sources of wisdom, liberals have their encyclopedias with wisdom based on empirical evidence on a wide number of useful subjects.
     
  23. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Popper contributed a lot to scientific epistemology. Probably the most important epistemologist in the 20th century (Kuhn followers might beg to differ). Maybe ever.... But his ideas are not dogma.

    Yes... sociology most definitely fits into the experimental method.

    I ask again: do you understand how Wikipedia works? I haven't looked at the Wikipedia page, but I can't remember a single real scandal during the Obama administration that would be attributable to Obama. Many many fake ones... hundreds of them.... but very few were real. And by "scandal" Abusing power to benefit himself or somebody close. There were mistakes, of course. But no scandals that I can recall.

    I was an admin a long long time ago. Not in the politics section, but in a very specific sub-category that dealt with Malware (particularly Spyware) within the IT security category. That was about 15 years ago. Those were the early stages, so this might have changed. But when somebody writes a claim that is disputed, whoever made the original entry has to prove that it's real. There is no way to prove that a fake scandal is real.
     
  24. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    3,096
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In which way ? Social science newspaper got many famous scientific hoax, the most well known being the one of Sokal, but they got more recent one, in the same category. Scientific newspapers that aren't able to tell apart between hoaxes and real research can't fit the definition of a science.
    Furthermore, you can hardly put social science into an experimental protocole as you need to isolate the variable, which you can't.


    Wikipedia is basically a form of representative democracy, where the citizens are people who have participated in an important manner to wikipedia, the different authorities are elected.
     

Share This Page