From the Cambridge English Dictionary:
biasedadjective
US
/ˈbaɪ.əst/ UK
/ˈbaɪ.əst/
C1
showing an unreasonable like or dislike for a person based on personal opinions:
"The newspapers gave a very biased report of the meeting."
"I think she's beautiful but then I'm biased since she's my daughter."
BIASED | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Wikipedia is 'biased' - but, then, so are we all:
Jay Doubleyou: you think wikipedia is biased? check out the telegraph
Here's an online publication which tries not to be biased:
UnHerd aims to do two things: to push back against the herd mentality with new and bold thinking, and to provide a platform for otherwise unheard ideas, people and places. We think this approach is more needed than ever. Societies across the West are divided and stuck, and the established media is struggling to make sense of what’s happening.
The governing ideologies of the past generation are too often either unquestioningly defended or rejected wholesale. It’s easy and safe to be in one or other of these two camps – defensive liberal or angry reactionary - but UnHerd is trying to do something different, and harder.
They interviewed the 'co-founder' of the online encyclopedia - who really thinks it's biased.
Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created - The Post
And this has been widely reported in the mainstream press:
'Nobody should trust Wikipedia,' co-founder Larry Sanger warns | Daily Mail Online
Nobody should trust Wikipedia, says man who invented Wikipedia | The Independent
But Larry Sanger clearly has a sense of humour:
The problem is that, apart from the 'liberal' Independent, the media outlets reporting this story are 'reactionary':
Wikipedia co-founder says he's 'embarrassed' over politicization of his creation | Fox News
Meanwhile, here is a different criticism of the 'bias' of Wikipedia, from the leftist Counterpunch,
In my new book, We’ll Tell You What to Think: Wikipedia, Propaganda and the Making of Liberal Consensus, I expose who funds Wikipedia, what their intentions are, and how they seek to shape narratives favorable to neoliberal capitalism and the US empire.
.
This is what Wikipedia has to say:
Criticism of Wikipedia - Wikipedia
.
For example:
Croatian Wikipedia[edit]Main article: Croatian Wikipedia § Controversy about right-wing bias
In 2013, the Croatian-language version of Wikipedia drew media attention after the daily newspaper Jutarnji list reported on critics' concerns that administrators and editors on the website were projecting a right-wing bias into topics such as the Ustashe regime, anti-fascism, Serbs, the LGBT community, and gay marriage. Many of the critics were former editors of the website who said they had been exiled for expressing concern. The small size of the Croatian Wikipedia (as of September 2013, it had 466 active editors of which 27 were administrators) was cited as a major factor. Two days after the story broke, Croatian Minister Željko Jovanović advised students not to use the website.[31][32][33][34] In 2018, historians with the University of Zagreb told the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) that the Croatian Wikipedia has "many shortcomings, factual mistakes and ideologically loaded language" and that students are often referred to the English Wikipedia instead of their native Croatian, especially for topics on Croatian history.[35]
Ideological bias on Wikipedia - Wikipedia
Which is why it's always good to double check between languages:
.
Finally, there is the question of 'systemic bias'.
Here is a very thorough exploration of this - from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia:Systemic bias - Wikipedia
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment