https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
You can notice a bias towards the state media from pro-capitalist regimes from the above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
You can notice a bias towards the state media from pro-capitalist regimes from the above.
Idk, I’ve learned a tremendous amount about things outside my culture… because of wikipedia. Don’t let perfection be the enemy of good?
Edit: I apologize that my comment derailed from the conversation of Wikipedia having inherent and abundant Western bias… the fact that VOA is considered reputable is enough to turn heads. What I guess I was trying to say is that I wouldn’t want people to ignore a good resource for information because of that… but it is also very important to point out and criticize their bias, if true neutrality is a Wikipedia “goal”
I apologize again. I would delete my comments, but I think it’s important to own up to my own errors and have a record of what was said. Maybe others will learn from my misinterpretation of the conversation being presented, and my initial emotional responses
Did you? Or did you read a tremendous amount of propaganda and selective truths, thinking you were getting informed?
Virtually all of the information you are reading is written by Western white men who have a very specific agenda. And the sources allowed are Western sources.
Nobody escapes propaganda. Learning and trying to understand your own bias is the best you can do. Unless you have a source for perfect objective truth that you’d like to share?
You can escape propaganda by getting informed by multiple perspectives.
Not by reading a single source which claims to represent multiple perspectives but actually completely reframes reality to sell you a single perspective.
Wikipedia is great for any exact sciences. History and politics related information is extremely selective and has a Western agenda attached.
Look at this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AverroesThey put his Latin name as the title and his picture is a painting in an Italian church. Now read who he was. Does the framing match?
I agree, multiple perspectives is absolutely key and using any one source for history or politics will be problematic. Wikipedia is absolutely bias with Western ideology, but it’s not exactly a propaganda machine. I always use it like you’re taught in school, that Wikipedia is not a source. Depending on how deeply you would like to learn about a subject, it’s a great start to finding sources. Unfortunately biased with Western bullshit, absolutely, as is everything coming out the west
I guess I am derailing the conversation if we’re just talking about and calling out Wiki’s Western bias. I would also hate for people to think it’s automatically not informative because of it’s bias… cause everything has one. Multiple sources and viewpoints, like you said, is the way to go
Idk, why should this issue be seen as good?
And what is your culture? Is Wikipedia good for it?
It’s not? Being informed is always positive, and it’s always unfortunate that bias exists. I’d rather learn and try to understand my own bias, as opposed to being ignorant and having bias anyway
Do you have a tool that is just as accessible as wiki, but perfectly objective? Or are you throwing the baby out with the bath-water? Knowledge is good for any culture, and bias is a motherfucker to us all. Your critique isn’t unwarranted, but it does flirt with anti-intellectualism
“Being informed is positive” is not what is being argued against, and you know it. This is disingenuous and poor rhetorics.
More poor rhetorics. If youre not interested in actual discussion, why engage with someone acting in clear, good faith? Its pretty clear that the argument is that the issue with Wikipedia is that it presents itself as unbiased, while in fact being heavily biased. The issue is not the presence of bias itself.
Being informed of the bias is also positive
No one mentioned anything about throwing the bathwater, but only hinted at the bias.
Are you trying to villainise and portray it as anti-intellectualism?
Are you thinking that the source you use is unbiased and trying to derial convos that hint at how it is not unbiased?
Noting the bias is a good thing and trying to shut down the convoys on that is a bigger mf to all of us.
Your concerns isn’t unwarranted, but it does flirt with strawmanning and derailing the convo.
Sounds like we both flirt with some bias, doesn’t it?
What point did you think you were making here?