/mlpol/ - My Little Politics


If you want to see the latest posts from all boards in a convenient way please check out /overboard/


Archived thread


Wikipedia-logo-v2.png
Systematic Bias in Wikipedia
Anonymous
kAmJ9
?
No.32206
32207 32216 32243 32260 32452
There are some threads about Wikipedia from time to time on /pol/, but they never are successful, because it takes some time to learn about the organisation of Wikipedia and how it works. And /pol/ is just too fast for this.

Wikipedia has some big problems with biased mods and because there are thousands of (written and unwritten) rules, it is very easy for them to "censor" you. It is nearly impossible to not break one of the countless rules. And if you aren't a marxist, they just act a bit tougher on you and soon you will be tired and give up.

If you write some lefty shit, it is totally ok if your only source is Buzzfeed or some shady blog... and sometimes they don't even have a source.
If you write something the mods don't like, you need at least 3 different sources and all of them have to be from "trustworthy" MSM sites… and then they will delete it anyway, without a comment, and then you have to start a discussion at the discussion page and most likely the mod will just not answer at all.

This problem exists for years now. And everyone who ever edited a Wikipedia page knows about it.
Lots of people tried multiple times to raise awareness about this and they even made alternative wikis.
Anonymous
41BRE
?
No.32207
32212
>>32206
Well, I don't trust Wikipedia, but it's useful for things that are inherently unbiased. At this point though I think things like ED and other joke sources of news are actually better than Wikipedia, because at least you know for a fact that half the stuff is a complete joke. "Fake news" isn't the problem, the problem is when news mixes fact and opinion without telling the viewer.
Anonymous
JzbkG
?
No.32208
I noticed this too, although my suspicions aren't ingrained in that much experience because I'm not a foolish normie who uses Wikipedia.
Anonymous
JzbkG
?
No.32210
32217
>>32209
This.
Annotated screencaps would be much appreciated.
Anonymous
kAmJ9
?
No.32212
32215
wiki-bias2.jpg
>>32207
The problem is that most people are not able to spot biased articles.
They think like this:
> Wikipedia was always right in Articles about math, science and astronomy, so i trust them in politics too
It is like a professor who is totally awesome and smart in his specific field… but he is an idiot everywhere else and he can't change a light bulb without help.
Anonymous
JzbkG
?
No.32215
>>32212
>most people are not able to spot biased articles.
Normiesa also often fail to read the citations...
In my opinion, If you don't read the citation you deserve to be lied to.
Anonymous
fgAal
?
No.32216
>>32206
I use wikipedia to get a basic idea, but when I write essays I am not allowed to use wikipedia as a source, no matter how tempting it is
Anonymous
kAmJ9
?
No.32217
32233
wikipedia-fake-news-d1.png
wikipedia-fake-news-d2.png
wikipedia-fake-news-d3.png
wikipedia-fake-news-d4.png
wikipedia-fake-news-d5.png
>>32209
>>32210
Not without reading text walls.
Because it is always like this:
> Someone tries to write something which some marxist admin dosen't like
> Admin deletes it without any comment
> The writer asks in the discussion page about it
> looong textwalls, he needs to rephrase it 1 million times and get 25 different sources
> People get tired
> At the end, nothing gets changed

And in the mean time someone adds some lefty sentence with Buzzfeed as the only source and no Admin cares about it. Nobody talks about 3 different sources there.
Anonymous
kAmJ9
?
No.32229
32233
>>32218
Here is the page of this androgyn marxist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RGloucester
Here is the jew:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IZAK
Here is the guy with the "Golden Wiki" thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Four_Deuces
But you should know that those "awards" are given from one user to another. Basically you could register at Wikipedia and give someone an award right now. It's just a big circlejerk of lefties praising each other.
Anonymous
VySY7
?
No.32232
tmp_14947-000522126130925.jpg
Wikipedia is where you go for the current mainstream view, and citations. Grab the citation and start your genuine research from there. Once you grasp that then look online for opposing views and their citations.

I consider Wikipedia to be the current socially acceptable mythology on any subject, even science and astronomy.
Anonymous
u76AG
?
No.32233
32239 32288
>>32217
>>32229
Is it possible to collect larger amounts of this information? To prove that it's not isolated incidents or relatively understandable instances of bias, but is systemic and massive?
Anonymous
kAmJ9
?
No.32239
>>32233
One of those 3 mentioned users is on Wikipedia since 2002, one for 6 years, and one for 8 years.
For more examples, just browse through their history and look at the users they like and what they are doing.
They give each other awards, so it's easy to spot them.
But you have to read a lot!
You can also just ask the guys from metapedia.org .

I know that it would be nice to have some more infopics, where you immediately see the marxist Admins and their actions.
But it's not that easy, because of the massive amount of text. It's just not possible to create a pic for every edit-war on Wikipedia.
Maybe i will put some effort into it and make some nice pics at the weekend.
Anonymous
JcApE
?
No.32243
>>32206
Wikipedia is pure 1985 newspeak. The mods are essentially all arseholes and every-time I have wanted to add or edit I end up in a fight with some cunt. What is worse is that they are the go to for information even on the chans.
Some pages are however not monitored and you can have some fun. Bob Crow was rarely looked at so I changed it to say he was into brass band music. Took three weeks for someone correct my false entry.

My question is when does MLPOL have justification to have its own page and when does MLPOL get a proper encyclopedia dramatica page?
Anonymous
NTdFq
?
No.32260
IMG_4398.JPG
>>32206

Anonymous
oo1KB
?
No.32277
32279 32281 32282 32312
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_white_male

The fuck is this?
Anonymous
gS7I2
?
No.32279
>>32277
Jesus Christ. If it "started in the 90s" why is the first entry from after election where Hillary used the term. They might also say that Angry White Men Liberated France from the suppressive regime.
https://youtu.be/gMYNfQlf1H8
Anonymous
gS7I2
?
No.32281
32287 32307
>>32277
Did some edits to reflect the truth more accurately, hopefully the sjw on wikipedia won't change them back too soon.
Anonymous
JcApE
?
No.32282
32285
>>32277
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_white_male#In_popular_culture

Just edit it a bit and see how long before they go back.
Anonymous
JcApE
?
No.32285
>>32282
However they have got bots that just reverse everything immediately. Just shows how toxic it has become.
Anonymous
oo1KB
?
No.32287
>>32281
Making wikipedia less cancer one step at time!
Good job anon
Anonymous
pjc5K
?
No.32288
32289
>>32233
There's a subreddit dedicated to it but the name escapes me, WikiInAction maybe?
Anonymous
JcApE
?
No.32289
32310
>>32288
I would advise people just to ignore Wikipedia and any attack on it. They are the most toxic, autistic bunch of cunts you can encounter online. You will achieve two things:
1. Personal, physical and mental disease.
2. An incredible amount of lost time that you could have done something more practical with.
Anonymous
kAmJ9
?
No.32307
32311
wiki1.jpg
wiki2.jpg
wiki3.jpg
>>32281
They reverted everything immediately… just the addition with the alt-left is still there.
But i guess that just nobody realized it yet.

btw.: Look at this faggot
Posting from the University wifi and making SJW edits.
(but at least someone reverted his changes too — he is just too obvious)
Anonymous
kAmJ9
?
No.32310
>>32289
This.
And never start debating on Talk-Pages. Because it is impossible to win. I never saw one single edit-war were someone won. You will just end up with incredible long textwalls. Edit-wars always end with no change being made at all.

You can have a million sources, you can BTFO everyone, you can win every single argument… but in the end someone will just write Logical Fallacies or insult you and some Admin will close the discussion because of this other guy getting triggerd...
They just sabotage you.

But it is still important to visit Talk-pages and to post there. Because you can make other peoples aware of the Wiki-bias.
And we need some examples to redpill normies about the political part of Wikipedia.

Just don't waste your time with incredible long discussions.
Anonymous
pjc5K
?
No.32311
>>32307
They'll have notifications set up so they can revert wrongthink in case someone touches one of "their" articles.
And there are organizations set up to inject their bias into articles on a large scale, together with organized mass-editing sessions (edit-a-thons?) on a regular basis.

WP is shit, don't use it for anything besides getting a quick summary of uncontroversial subjects.
Anonymous
JzbkG
?
No.32312
angry toads.jpg
>>32277
>mfw wrote countless articles like this about every race
>mfw they were better cited, better written and more accurate than this one
>mfw this bullshit gets to stay up when all of mine got taken down within days
Why are only SJWs allowed to have fun?!
Anonymous
8oXiH
?
No.32360
32362
0a5.jpg
so does that dumb fuck jimbo whales - the guy that runs the place - know about this shit? Or is he a lefty fagtivist too / behind it all?
Anonymous
JzbkG
?
No.32362
>>32360
I doubt anyone knows about the entire workings of Wikipedia: it was meant to be run by the users. It is a good question though, as to whether or not he has instructed his goons to monitor for racism and whatnot.
Anonymous
eAHEA
?
No.32452
32455
>>32206
Wikipedia is good for science stuff but most other stuff is filtered by social biases.
Anonymous
JzbkG
?
No.32455
32458 32481
>>32452
This.
I used to add fake animals to Wikipedia for fun (I was young: I hated society). It's by no means reliable.
Anonymous
eAHEA
?
No.32456
Despite being on Wikipedia a lot I use it to get an overview and start research most of the time.
I am more interested in science than opinions so it doesn't influence the stuff I look up most of the time.
Anonymous
73Lvu
?
No.32458
32462
image.jpeg
>>32455
>Cataloger of the Lesser Latvian Warbler
I remember you from the old "vices" thread
Anonymous
JzbkG
?
No.32462
ebil poster.png
>>32458
...guilty as charged...
Anonymous
kAmJ9
?
No.32481
>>32455
This souds very funny.
Maybe i will do this too... because fuck them.
;