you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (17 children)

Because this website is well-known for spreading disinformation (about legal problems that aren't legal problems):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News

[–]enefi 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

website is well-known for spreading disinformation

and a source is https://en.wikipedia.org? You realize that description fits wikipedia too (e.g. gamergate). Just checked the first linked article what were the basis for Google to ban the site, and its snopes, another politically biased entity. I stopped wasting my time at that point.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

So you want to argue about facts and science? That's what naturalnews.com is arguing against. Wikipedia and snopes merely note the facts about that side. You have no evidence of pollitical bias.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Good, Yin: you can copy and paste the party lines here and there on Saidit. Have you checked your sources? Are they accurate? Can you corrobrate what they note with other reliable sources? If not, would you say you have a slave mentality about this unproven nonsense?

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      You're making the same comments that your right-wing social media make. You're merely copying them. Parroted comments are known as party lines, as in the "party line" for Republicans on a given subject. Also consider the grammar of:

      1 person party of not [...] examining all sides objectively.

      [–]adultmanhwa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

      the most stupid argument we have. wikipedia is not just noting the facts they also construct the opinion. ever heard something like, even if the original writers of book trying to fix the fact and then got rejected by wikipedia?

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      Yes, of course there are problems with a massive site like Wikipedia. The site is still usefeful because you can check the sources and corroborate those sources. It's ridiculous to note that someone had a problem with the site, thus the entire site is rubbish. It's also ridiculous to parrot the usual comments from right-wing social media, while not providing any evidence.

      [–]adultmanhwa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      why you assume I deemed all wikipedia fact is rubbish? What I'm saying is their site is corrupted and not purely behave like academics do. That's not supposed to be happening. It might better to make wiki like a UN that controlled by big entity compared to only one in control.

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      But the main problem with Wikipedia is that a massive number of editors have control, with very little oversight. Thus if the IDF want to tell lies about Palestine, their army of editors can continue to do so on Wikipedia, whereas relatively non-biased editors would have some difficulty controlling their narrative. "Free speech" in that case is easily manipulated by the powerful and wealthy because they are unregulated. A diverse, elected, ethics board should control the site.

      [–]adultmanhwa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      Every diversity dude might be 'god sent', or cheaper way to criticize/fixing this douche is using dissenter addons and as if give a comment on top of already existing comment on site.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      I read this 4 times, and still don't understand it.

      [–]adultmanhwa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Ignore that, in short : I'm skeptics about 'elected' ethics board. It's either wikipedia controlled by national entity (different sovereign) or just make dissenter addons great again.

      [–]enefi 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      You have no evidence of pollitical bias.

      Just read http://www.historyofgamergate.com or watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wt8k-3xD5s, and then read what's on wikipedia. Another example of a wiki page with strong bias is Nazism - they (left) didn't like that people were pointing out striking similarities to far-left/progressivism, so they removed offending parts and I believe even redefined some terms. It's still available on archive sites for comparison. If that isn't political/ideological bias then I don't know what is. Even the founder of wikipedia was disgusted with how the site turned out (I think he left and now he's working on an alternative to wikipedia, something which is supposed to be more objective and not so easily manipulated by wikipedia <-> msm circlejerk).

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Thanks for this. Yes, gamergate I recall hearing about, and will look more at this. It's one example, however.

      Regarding disinformation, it's a well known tactic of the extreme right wing to try to shift the blame on to the left by claiming that the left is doing exactly what the right are doing. It's a subversion campaign that has no basis in reality. There may be a person who considers him/herself a far left progressive Nazi, but that is not the definition of a Nazi. It's just an idiot, or a small group of idiots who may or may not exist, but are not really by definition representative of Nazi or Nazism. Wikipedia naturally has to remove nonsense, lies, disinformation and misinformation. It's the job of the editors. When Breitbard, InfoWars, and other corporate-funded goons and their followers cry about this, they're upset that they cannot twist the facts into lies, in order to lead more sheep to the slaughter. It's not surprising. What we need is a reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, which would require that the far right provide appropriate evidence for their claims. This was necessary at the turn of the 20th century, and thus the law developed thereafter. Regarding the MSM, there is now a wide variety to choose from, thanks to the internet. Twittler and others have tried for years to convince their followers not to trust the MSM, which however got him elected. I think most people undersstand that the MSM is just one place for the news, and can find the least biased examples if they bother to look. Some of those least biased sources are among the MSM.