- 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.
You must log in or # to comment.
I’m not sure the NYP took the bait, they’re more like the bait shop; more than happy to sell whatever the right wing outrage machine is selling on a given day.
And when there’s nothing to sell today, they’ll drum up some shit for a sale tomorrow
Yeah… The Post isn’t much of a shocker. It’d be more of a shocker if it were NYT.
In the kangaroo court in which a mob ousted me, Wikipedia’s administrators showed that they don’t appear to value details like formal charges, a designated prosecutor, basic decorum, distinction between prosecution and judge, dispassionate adjudication, and so forth
These hypocrite fucks always rail off at the mouth about how abused they are… and it’s always just to get their foot in the door. Once they run the show, they rewrite history, dole out all the abuse they want and face zero repercussions. Intolerant shits that the rest of us simply must tolerate. Well go fuck yourself Larry Sanger. The world doesn’t need more right-wing bullshit.
“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” --Stephen Colbert
Will he start working for conervapedia now?
Good work by wikipedia. Always good to get the trash out.Accusing a site of being left bias then turning it into a right wing shithole has, sadly, worked time and time again. Let’s hope Wikipedia can keep holding out.
So long as reliable secondary sources exist, Wikipedia will exist.
And if not, the idea of a centralised information collection is unkillable
Physicists say otherwise. Its death is in fact inevitable.
He’s not really a founder; he didn’t even have anything to do with it.
And he’s a right wrong fascist so banning him is a good thing.
To me, Larry Sanger always struck me more as an Ideas Guy. Specifically, the kind of an Ideas Guy who didn’t always have the best ideas. He keeps dissing Wikipedia, but just look at the absolute trainwrecks his supposedly better other projects turned out.
The thing is Wikipedia isn’t even left-wing. User survey shows the editors holds left-wing and right-wing beliefs about equally. And Jimmy Wales, the founder, is an Ayn Rand reading “objectivist” for crying out loud.
reality has a well known left-wing bias
If you base something on facts, it will be left leaning. Right leaning has a higher value in loyalty, authority, respect, and spirituality. They will deny facts if they have to in order to prioritize their other values. Right leaning people tend to be more likely to be on time, have cleaner desks, and speak more formally to someone they deem a “superior”. Left leaning often could give a rats ass about authority, and respect is only given once it’s earned.
All that to say, facts and reality are more left leaning by nature. Given many religious folks will deny nature’s history for their spiritual beliefs.
reality has a well known left-wing bias
No, it’s just that the right-wing has become accustomed to lying it’s ass off to get what it wants.
also verifiable facts, and sciences contradicts right wing beliefs. plus having the dirty laundry of every prominent right winger as well. trump has a HORDe info about him, as did other R president.
problem is the use has a large ultra right and centerist groups but the actual left is small but growing in recent days.
If you asked 1000 randomly picked Americans “should the wealthy elite own your surplus labor value?” you’d find a lot more agreement with leftist views than you’d think. The ultra-right is a big chunk but it’s not the majority, the dedicated core is just well organized and most westerners are ignorant about what they are actually voting for so it appears more popular.
I would expect them to be confused and suspicious of the term “surplus labor value”. If not, then education has a problem.
And in the left Lemmy communities is known as ‘nato-pedia’ for his Western pov bias
User survey shows the editors hold left-wing and right-wing beliefs about equally
all i found was that self-responses are preponderantly left/center-left: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-04-25/Recent_research
![Political position of Wikipedia users, based on responses to the survey question "In political matters, people talk of 'the left' and 'the right.' How would you place your views on this scale, generally speaking? [You position on the left-right scale]" [sic], with the answer hint "The scale goes from 1 (left) to 10 (right)." Visualization of data from: Cruciani, Caterina; Joubert, Léo; Jullien, Nicolas; Mell, Laurent; Piccione, Sasha; Vermeirsche, Jeanne (2023-12-01), Surveying Wikipedians: a dataset of users and contributors’ practices on Wikipedia in 8 languages doi:10.34847/nkl.4ecf4u8m, see also m:Research:Surveying readers and contributors to Wikipedia (June/July 2023 survey of Wikipedia readers and contributors in 8 languages)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Political_position_of_Wikipedia_users_%282023_Wikipedia_survey%29.png/960px-Political_position_of_Wikipedia_users_%282023_Wikipedia_survey%29.png)
where is that survey source you got, i seriously doubt it, almost every right winger criticizes the site as not being right wing enough.
editors hold left-wing and right-wing beliefs about equally
source? i’d doubt that unless you’re defining liberals as right-wing here
These reactionaries will never be happy until literally everything is a fascist propaganda outlet. Not content with all mainstream media and social media, wikipedia and other community information hubs must fall next
exactly. there may be genuine improvements Wikipedia could make, but as long as there’s a rabid pack of chuds making demands that change happen, I’ll support Wiki taking it slowly and deliberately. Anything that pisses off those fuckwits has to be good for humanity.
Sander hasn’t been a part of the Wikipedia project since 2002.
He launched a competing project - Citizendium - which flopped. Also, the Digital Universe Encyclopedia web project, which went nowhere. And Encyclopedia of Earth which also failed to launch. WatchKnowLearn and Infobitt did a bit better, but neither became household names.
Basically, he’s been bouncing in and out of middling projects for the better part of 25 years. And I suspect this string of failures hasn’t been particularly good for his ego.
I read his “contributions” to the Gaza genocide article’s talk page, along with the equally mealy-mouthed hand-wringing of Jimmy Wales. Total bellends both, although for different reasons. Jimmy is pressured into being an annoying grandstanding dickhead by Israeli interests, whereas Larry’s pressured into being an annoying grandstanding dickhead by his childhood.
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
Discussions about potential bans are supposed to remain open for at least 72 hours. While consensus that Sanger had violated Wikipedia policies was clear, Sanger was banned at some point before that deadline. He was then briefly unbanned, and then again indefinitely banned once 72 hours had elapsed and the discussion about the ban closed.
There is clearly some extreme bias on Wikipedia when they can’t even follow this very normal and regularly practised rule
They literally gave him three days.
youre right, execute the editors.
edit: /s
