By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 01 October 2012
Edit Thread
badgenome said:
Kasz216 said:

Well actually, there have been a few scandals about Wikipedia being leftwing biased and male biased.

There was a case on Global warming for example where it said a sciencest who was a global warming skeptic admitted global warming was real... when he didn't, and a reporter who knew him couldn't get the article changed.  Even after he got full support from the sceintist in question... and the sceintist himself tried to get his own wikipedia entry to reflect him more accurately.

So it's not even a matter of "Some people don't like what it says about global warming" so much as it is "actual factual positions are willingly misrepresented."

 

In general controversial conservatives tend to have longer disent pages then controversial liberals, stuff like that.

 

As for the male based thing... see, all media pretty much everywhere, and how stuff involving men and women get reported differently with different words.

Yeah, Wikipedia is stupidly biased that way. Almost every talk page about a politically charged subject amounts to an edit war of attrition in which the left steamrolls all dissent through sheer numbers and selective adherence to the rules. (Kind of like their method of governance in general, then.) Just compare the entry on Fjordman, where they literally can't wait to call him a "far-right Islamophobic blogger", to those on Louis Farrakhan or the Nation of Islam, which are always at great pains to use the more neutral language that they are "accused by critics" of being racist and anti-semitic despite the nakedly wackdoodle belief that whites are a mad scientist's experiment, the support for Mugabe's systematic theft of white-owned land, etc.


Well to be fair, I could see the arguement behind the systematic theft of white owned land since essentially it was mostly do to the past racist government... if it wasn't for the fact that Mugabe fucked it all up by

A) Essentially using that land as handouts to bribe/reward the higher ups in his government.

B) Not having anyone that actually knew how to farm... turning a huge exporter of food into a starving country.

C) Not actually having any compensation

 

A government seizure of the land for a fair market value, while having a transition to train people from the country in farming and handing over the farms to them...