- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
Larry Sanger, one of Wikipedia’s cofounders, was banned from editing the site indefinitely after other editors determined he was canvassing, or in other words, calling on his followers off platform in order to influence Wikipedia’s content.
Sanger has spent more than a decade criticizing Wikipedia for what he claims is an ideological, left-wing bias on a variety of topics, and on X has framed this recent ban as further proof of everything that’s wrong with Wikipedia. The New York Post took that bait and last night published an article with the headline “Left-leaning Wikipedia blocked founder from editing site—after he campaigned to make it more balanced.”
Wikipedia editors obviously reject that framing and say that Sanger was banned for wielding his followers to sway discussion and decision making on Wikipedia. The discussion that led to the decision to ban Sanger concluded with what an editor called a “clear consensus” to ban Sanger.
It’s a little sad that he’s still messing with that site. It’s been years since I’ve used it for anything. It’s incomplete and heavily biased.
Wikipedia is a great start point. You read the wiki, then check the references. Just like reading the news, you should never take one source at face value! Engage your ✨ CRITICAL THINKING ✨
Wikipedia is pointless. You can ask any AI your question and ask for sources. It’s more reliable than wikipedia.
I thought you were joking at first… AI said our company owned and operated a competitor. We had to waste time and effort telling them AI is full of shit, and arguing with people that AI was wrong.
And, on a regular basis, I have to tell people that what AI told them for support, is also bullshit. I actually had a case where I was logged into a users machine, and he literally took the logs I was copying (right in front of me), and threw it straight into claude.
The problem with AI, is that it doesn’t necessarily have a good idea of what a reliable source is
How is it biased? Biased towards truth? If you have proof of it lying or misrepresenting something, then you just have to prove it and I am sure they or you will be able to change it.
They will not let you change it. They gate keep who gets to edit things intensely.
For good reason, there is a lot of interest in implementing actual bias.
Israel/Palestine/Gaza is examples of this.
Do you have any examples of bias? Or wrong information?
where are the biases? opinons are biases, facts are not