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 10/29/2026 8:26:53 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Anyone can add information to the pages of Wikipedia, even without an account. However, senior volunteer editors have a tight grip on what remains. Oftentimes, information is removed minutes later if they don’t like it.
If that information comes from The Gateway Pundit, Newsmax, Breitbart, Media Research Center, O’Keefe, and others on the right, it will likely be removed.
Wikipedia editors have determined that almost every conservative news outlet is unreliable and disallowed their content in some fashion.
In fact, The Gateway Pundit finished a study on this, and it is worse than we thought.
LEFT SOURCES ALLOWED: 37 of 75 reviewed (49%).
RIGHT SOURCES ALLOWED: 2 of 75 reviewed (3%).
Since 2018, Wikipedia has created an ecosystem where left-leaning sources are favored. Of the 75 conservative outlets we listed, only 2 are approved as sources (see PDF list below).
Other conservative publishers are restricted in different ways. The “entertainment” content could possibly be sourced from the New York Post, but not its general news.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
|
|
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. |
Wikipedia?
Oh yeah. That’s the site people used before AI.
There have been scandals reported with Wikipedia for a long time. It has been reported before that the moderators don’t use conservative content. It also has been reported that its easy for PR agents to manipulate the content for their clients and remove negative content even if its true. If you read the bios of some actors, they are laughable. They read like a PR agent press release, even when you know the actor has had scandals in their past (which aren’t even hinted at on the page). Personally, I’ve never relied on Wikipedia for information about any political or social issue. I just use it for issues that aren’t politically charged.
“Oh yeah. That’s the site people used before AI.”
Most AI agents who answer questions seem to have a similar habit of only gathering information from left wing sources
this wouldn’t just be random chance, someone must have told them to do this.
there is a push on social media right now to go ahead and ask AI about who you should vote for
they do this because they know most of the answers will help lead you to vote for the socialist
“sure trust Wikipedia, and trust AI”
Except AI uses Wiki as source info all the time.
WIKI is great for finding information if it has no political or social content. If it does, WIKI morphs into a left-wing propaganda organ. They lie via censorship and even worse is their selective omissions. The selective omission can change the entire meaning of an article.
Haha, wikipedia! AI has made you obsolete!
For political stuff Wikipedia is worse than worthless. For general information, like the biography of an actor and what movies they were in, it is ok. My favorite part is closing the opening plea for money. Ha! Like I’d contribute anything to these socialist scumbags!
Another season of screaming for donations. Doesn’t Soros own it? Tough toenails on that one.
Over 20 years ago, I wrote a history of my local area and it was posted on our local chamber of commerce website. By accident a couple of years ago, I discovered that someone had copied and pasted it into Wikipedia with no accreditation to me or the chamber of commerce.
Compare Wikipedia political to allegedly non-political.
At times in the past Wiki was very preJudiced against IBM and for Oracle. Then against Oracle and for open source, then against open source and for Microsoft, then against Microsoft.
Wiki has followed the fads of college professors and the fads of certain parts of society.
I suspect wiki has been prejudiced in other areas I have not followed as closely. Example. health and nutrition: Are eggs good or bad for your health? Is food x and y good or bad for your health?
It is difficult for any information source to be objective and accurate. It is better if all information sources declare their bias and try to defend and promote it. Example: CATO is very biased. But it tells you its bias upfront.
I asked many Large Language Models (LLM, Ai) if they used Wokepedia as a source of information. They all said yes.
Glad I saw this before I donated to them.
My shocked face
https://americasbestpics.com/picture/this-is-my-shocked-face-memegenerator-net-CC5Bz9B9B?s=cl
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.