Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/07/2025 7:37:19 PM PDT by DoodleBob
Even with public trust at an all-time low, Wikipedia continues to maintain people's confidence. How do they do it? Former CEO of Wikimedia Foundation Katherine Maher delves into the transparent, adaptable and community-building ways the online encyclopedia brings free and reliable information to the public -- while also accounting for bias and difference of opinion. "The seeds of our disagreement can actually become the roots of our common purpose," she says.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I occasionally use Wikipedia (on the order of once a month). It’s usually for technical or historical information (i.e. Kalman filters, geologic eras, astronomy, etc.). I don’t even consider it for controversial or political topics. Like anything from the media, their major bias is not in what they say, it’s in what they omit.
Too often they practice sleight of hand, pretending that the two are interchangeable before an undiscerning public.
She’s confusing truth and facts with opinions and narratives which are two different things but the left will always champion “the narrative”.
ivy league con artist, really. It’s also obvious they don’t really expect you to believe their party line nonsense, but it’s a kind of Loyalty Test. Virtue signaling, “I believe these things that are good because they say they are good. It you believe something different that makes you a bad person”.
/
.modern academia at its core
“their major bias is not in what they say, it’s in what they omit”
Good catch—that is exactly how they play.
They also tend to rely on official government and mass media sources that are known liars.
If you fact check a known liar by using another known liar all you do is end up with a lie claimed to be a fact.
One of its many flaws is that Wikipedia has chosen one out of hundreds of possible different philosophical views—and crams it down our throats in all kinds of ways.
This is their view of the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
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.