Posted on 11/27/2019 11:06:29 AM PST by davikkm
Wikipedia “moderators” and senior editors are working towards promoting left-leaning organizations and ideals, while suppressing right-leaning organizations and ideals. The staff editors and senior-level volunteer editors are highlighting negative information for Republicans more generally, and deleting or reforming edits that portray liberal ideals in a negative light. Here, I’ll present a few examples.
1. Fox News vs. CNN
Fox News: lead contains (paragraph at the top, what most people form their initial impressions upon):
Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations, and conservative causes while slandering the Democratic Party and spreading harmful propaganda intended to negatively affect its members’ electoral performances.[11][12][13][14] Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[15][16] Fox News employees have said that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming, and have denied bias in news reporting, while former employees have said that Fox ordered them to “slant the news in favor of conservatives”.[17] During Trump’s presidency, observers have noted a pronounced tendency of Fox News to serve as a “mouthpiece” for the administration, providing “propaganda” and a “feedback loop” for Trump, with one presidential scholar stating, “it’s the closest we’ve come to having state TV.”[18][19][20][21][22]
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
Leftists writing from their gov't computers!
I’ve known that for a long time. When I look something up that could be subject to political bias....that is, something other than the score of Super Bowl XLV...I always find bias and it’s hugely in favor of Maoists.
Actor Nick Cage says “You Don’t Say!”
“Wikipedia is biased against conservatives and conservative institutions”
No stuff! Just check out Free Republic on Wikipedia.
We need the “I’m shocked, I tell ya. Shocked” guy!
No ef’n kidding, Dick Tracy! Where’s your squad car?
They’re just figuring this out?
I am an occasional “editor” on Wiki focusing on topics related to ancient Rome and Byzantium. What I’ve learned is that there are monomaniacal people on there with an agenda who do nothing put promote the agenda 24-7. They will eventually wear you down unless you make it your life’s work to do the same.
I use Wikipedia to look up non-political stuff. They are always asking for donations, but because of their political slant they will never get a dime out of me.
Wikipedia's liberal bias has been pointed out here on FR several times over the past few years (at least that I've noticed). I have noticed it too. Although the things I look up tend to not be subject to political bias - at least you wouldn't think so... Still, even just looking up information on a city or even a modest sized town you can find liberal viewpoints and spin in the descriptions.
Wikipedia is especially into revisionist history.
This ^
The Left can never honest and truthful because they can’t stand the exposure. But their true colors are showing more and more. They rely on the ignorance of most people.
It's so bad now, they "police" what is worthy of inclusion. Wiki is as credible snopes these days.
If it isn’t politicized in Wikipedia yet, it’s only because the SJWs haven’t gotten to that article yet. Wikipedia needs to have a way to screen out biased editors and then have every politicized article scrubbed. I’m sure some clever psychologist could come up with a test that would help with screening out the crazies.
If Wikipedia made some significant changes, I’d be willing to again start donating to their foundation. As it stands now, donating to their foundation is like donating to the Democrat Party, PBS, CNN, etc.
It’s damned disgusting.
Censorship by omission is a huge problem. Our Colorado governor is “married” to another man and they have an adopted child. I mentioned that to a little old lady who had voted for him and she said I must be making it up. I showed her and she said she would never have voted for him if she had known that. The media kept it mostly quiet until after the election.
As I told some censors who did not want inclusion of Buttigieg's blunder at inferring substantial and notable black support for him, "justification for what is actually censorship is never lacking based upon the interpretation of some policy," such it "not being from a qualified "non-biased" (like WaPo!) source, or that favorite of all WP catch-alls, NPOV," including by summing up what the issue obviously was.
I’d never trust Wikipedia about political stuff but they are very good about everything else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.