Wikipedia is now redacting information anytime anyone writes out the birth names of any transgender people, even in the so-called “discussion pages” to discuss article content… but no, this ISN’T a nu-religious movement...

submitted by loubag1997 from (i.imgur.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Wikipedia has been a biased, inaccurate source of information for a long time. There are mods who gaurd the pages of their pet subjects against intruders - even if it's a credentialed expert trying to correct misinformation. It's ridiculous.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Wikipedia has always been biased, the very nature of the platform gives it a bias towards popular opinion over factual evidence, or at least so far as popular opinion amongst those that edit Wikipedia.

And just as always Wikipedia isn't an authoritative source and shouldn't be cited. I'll give no credit for Wikipedia sources, it is an excellent index of sources however if you're using it to find other sources.

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

When I went to college, my lecturers did not count Wikipedia articles as sources. A large portion of your marks for an essay went towards references and you got no marks for referencing Wikipedia articles. Which they are right to do. I did look at the sources those articles used

[–]Smarterthanlastweek2 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I did look at the sources those articles used

Right, but now sources that editors don't want known won't be included.

[–]RedEyedWarriorThe Evil Cishomo 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. Fuck Wikipedia.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Wikipedia has always been biased, the very nature of the platform gives it a bias towards popular opinion over factual evidence,

That might have been a reason for bias when it started but it's not the reason for bias today.

[–]hfxB0oyADon't piss on my head & tell me it's raining. 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Paper encyclopedias are going to have a moment again.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You just have to have something which is a little bit harder to edit and gives more authority than Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong I like the Wikipedia model, anyone can edit it and all the edits are a matter of record. It's an excellent resource to start with, it just cannot be trusted to be accurate and you should always dig a bit deeper for anything where it matters. Wikipedia either ends up as a Mexican standoff between editors and you get something somewhat resembling an objective article or it's some niche thing nobody cares about and one or s few editors with time on their hands can fully control the article for good or for evil. I'm almost certain corporate interests are also active on their own Wikipedia pages for example. I've noticed a lot of stuff that reads like it was written by marketing departments.

The web isn't as organic or grassroots as it might appear.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This affects culture war stuff but it's also a big problem with state actors manipulating articles related to antiwar journalists.