There's nothing neutral about Wikipedia

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wikipedia is fantastic for easily finding basic, non-controversial information, such as a band’s discography or sports records. But I’ve always felt that Michael Scott summed it up nicely:


Seriously though, I’ve actually been surprised by how even-handed the Catholic entries are.
 
Last edited:
Point: From the vantage point of the left, everything appears conservative.
Point: Tech is cutting edge and somehow cultural progressivism has inveigled its way in. They are not absolutely dependent upon each other and, IMO should be separated as the advance of technology must be in accord with unchanging moral principles, rather than redefining them.
IBM? Cannot tell either way. They are a large, contemporary corporation. Their business practices may be “conservative” (from what aspect?) but that might mean only that they are out rioting and looting? They might not be as in your face as others, but that falls under the virtue of prudence.
It seems that we are forced to be either a Luddite or a social progressive. The middle ground, like an island in the sea, is a place of balance and of reason.
 
po18guy said:
Point: From the vantage point of the left, everything appears conservative.
Click to expand...
And from the vantage point of the right, many things appear “socialist” even if they really aren’t. So what was the point again?
po18guy said:
Tech is cutting edge and somehow cultural progressivism has inveigled its way in.
Click to expand...
I make my living in tech. There are people of every stripe, from outright Communists to outright Fascists involved. “cultural progressivism” isn’t even on my radar screen, much less anything to lose sleep over.
po18guy said:
It seems that we are forced to be either a Luddite or a social progressive.
Click to expand...
Apparently more supposition here. No, you are not forced into either camp. The middle ground is where the majority of actual people live, it’s just that we don’t make as much noise on a day to day basis, so you don’t hear about or from us as much.
 
po18guy said:
It is decidedly left-wing, …
Who writes the articles? Mostly the same liberal (OK, leftist progressives) who are activists in all other aspects of human existence. I opine that it is a form of self-centeredness, an immaturity actually - to force-mold reality into that which is personally desired.
Click to expand...
Where would you go to avoid immaturity and get information and source references pro and con on various topics such as for example Tegmark’s mathematical universe hypothesis? Or the development of endosymbiosis? Or Chernyshevsky’s vision of utopian socialism, pro and con?
 
fredystairs said:
at least one of my professors said that he would NOT accept any research done on Wikipedia. He said that we could use it to find other sources (those which were referenced in the Wikipedia article) but we could not use it as a source itself.
Click to expand...
Which is perfectly reasonable. Wikipedia is supposed to be nothing more than a compendium of third party sources. You wouldn’t cite to it for academic research any more than you’d cite the Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature rather than pulling the actual articles the Readers’ Guide has listed on your topic.
 
Relativism. You are negating all discussion here with your relentless negativism.
I am wasting my time. I’m going to talk to my cat.

She listens.
 
The thing is that it boldly proclaims the conservative nature of the site. So many sites which claim to be “fair” “accurate” “unbiased” are often the most biased. When one’s world is centered on the self, everything appears biased.
 
Well, yes, you are wasting your time if you are trying to convince me to change my position with those arguments. I am not as nice as a cat, but I listen quite well. I simply disagree.

Not sure how that equates to relativism or negativism, whichever one you actually meant, but there it is.
Code:
 
Last edited:
whatistrue said:
I make my living in tech. There are people of every stripe, from outright Communists to outright Fascists involved. “cultural progressivism” isn’t even on my radar screen, much less anything to lose sleep over.
Click to expand...
You aren’t paying attention or you are purposefully portraying things in a benign light.

This kind of thing is happening everywhere…

https://caldronpool.com/family-doctor-suspended-after-sharing-christian-beliefs-online/amp/

Or here if your browser isn’t happy with that page.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CaldronPool/status/1336792930145562624?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1336792930145562624|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.citizenfreepress.com%2Fbreaking%2Fdisturbing-story-from-australia%2F

Certain views are no longer permitted in “polite” society. Unfortunately political correctness, i.e., cultural progressivism, is far from polite, it is positively malignant.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
You aren’t paying attention or you are purposefully portraying things in a benign light.
Click to expand...
I believe this is the nicest negative thing anyone has been accused of. I would like that as my epitaph. He portrayed everything in a benign light. This is exactly what Catholics are called to do to avoid rash judgement.
 
Yep, which is why I stopped using it.
Edit wars over a state recognized Indian tribe just wasn’t worth it
(The Cherokee Nation are not arbiters of who is Cherokee)
 
Of course Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This is something well-known across Wikipedia as well: we do not cite Wikipedia in Wikipedia articles, nor would we cite any wiki with user-generated content, because they are inherently unstable, unverified, and unreliable.

Now here is a major reason why Wikipedia is left-leaning. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, and so vetting those secondary sources is something that takes up significant effort among editors. The problem is that many right-leaning sources (Breitbart, The Daily Caller, LifeSiteNews et. al.) are considered by Wikipedia (and many other reputable orgs) to be completely unreliable and have been blacklisted from the list of sources usable on Wikipedia. There are comparatively few left and ultra-left sources that have been found fabricating stories and publishing lies, and therefore, Wikipedia is content to use a preponderance of left-leaning sources due to their better reputation. The editors may read such sources on a regular basis, and so I regularly see NCReporter and RNS preferred to NCRegister and CNA in Catholic topics. It is possible to put together good articles that are neutral by picking and choosing good scholarly and book-based sources that are not left-leaning. But the leftism always trickles in eventually. It also hurts us that many right-leaning and conservative editors have been blocked and exiled from the wiki due to not knowing/caring about the policies and guidelines in place regarding editor behavior and article content.

There is a section in Wikipedia called WP:RGW, and it basically tells us that we cannot expect to come on Wikipedia and “right great wrongs” in the world by our editing behavior. Wikipedia tends to reflect the world and moreover reflect its editors, so until and unless more good-faith editors with a less than left-wing bias come on and contribute meaningfully to the project, the left-leaners will always dominate, and that is nobody’s fault but ours.
 
From wikis first days, it has been useful but not necessarily accurate. Some entries are very accurate and some are out in left field but it’s still useful. Any entry should have links to the sources used and for me, that’s what is the most useful part is.

Above, someone pointed out that controversial topics tend to be very suspect, non controversial content tends to be very informative and usually accurate and following the links gives you the actual content often needed for academic/professional papers. I use wiki all the time. I do not trust wiki all the time, however, but honestly for most people most of the time, they are going to get the answers to their questions.

I think the whole wiki project is brilliant. It’s all encompassing and readily available. If you don’t like the answers it gives, follow the links and check it out…and it’s free! Just because it isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it isn’t useful.
 
Pattylt said:
It’s all encompassing and readily available. If you don’t like the answers it gives, follow the links and check it out…and it’s free! Just because it isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it isn’t useful.
Click to expand...
I agree it is useful as a very convenient source of data. I can’t make it through an old movie without checking what other movies that character actor was in, etc.

But any issue with ideological implications tends to be interpreted from a liberal slant. I’m not sure why that is. “Conservapedia” was started by people who claim their entries on Wikipedia were amended in a liberal direction before the ink was dry.

Similar to Facebook.
Their not-so-neutral “fact checkers” are increasingly intrusive, looking for wrong interpretations, not just wrong facts.
 
From Wikiquote:

‘Quote anything from the internet and you may be quoting a fool’: Abraham Lincoln
 
And our “foil” here does not know that fascism is left wing. Government supremacy, government control is of the left.


And if Dennis Prager is denigrated, I will call out anti-Semitism! It’s only fair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top