Wikipedia is heavily biased in favor of center-left viewpoints. It doesn’t allow similar right-wing sources to be cited in the same way that it allows similar left-wing ones. My solution to Wikipedia’s bias problem would be to add bias labels to edits & users instead of banning sources along partisan lines. Users could voluntarily identify their own biases, and other users could dispute those labels if they believed they were inaccurate.
P.S. Wikipedia and Reddit are major contributors to why LLMs tend to have that left-of-center bias.
I wouldn’t say that; sometimes statistics, like crime statistics, are distorted at the point of collection. The misclassification of non-white offenders as “white” in crime statistics leads to an overrepresentation of white crime in the USA, which racist people could probably use as fuel for their perceived persecution.
In the UK, you’ll see Pakistanis being labeled as Asian, which would lead people to joke that Japanese people are doing X or Y crimes. In the USA, you’ll see Arabic or other non-stereotypical white names, and pictures of people obviously not white, being labeled as white.
P.S. I don’t support any racist whatnot; it’s just a notable example of data collection skewing a statistic and causing an overrepresentation of crimes committed by so-called white people.
That source is some guy’s blog masquerading as a newspaper. Also, even if it’s accurate, I don’t see how “whites” (which has always been a malleable term) being marginally overrepresented in some subset of crime statistics is worth anyone’s attention at this point. How is this of value to anyone except white supremacists trying to pretend their ideology is supported by facts?
It’s probably the wrong example to bring up, even if it is true, since it’s likely to elicit an emotional response that undermines the delivery of the original intent of my point: that data collection is a point where the statistics people rely on are often skewed.
The main point is that flawed data collection is skewing the results. I don’t remember where to find the one with the mugshots to be honest.
“In response to a directive by the U.S. Government’s Office of Management and Budget, the national UCR Program has expanded its data collection categories for race from four (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Asian or Other Pacific Islander) to five (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander). Also, the ethnicity categories have changed from “Hispanic” to “Hispanic or Latino Origin” and from “Non-Hispanic” to “Not of Hispanic or Latino Origin.” These changes will be reflected in data presented for 2013.”
Getting back to your original point, is the idea that certain races commit more crimes a left versus right thing in your perspective? I’d like to clarify that before I look at fifteen year old data.
I’m gonna be honest, most parts in history are center-left. You’re not gonna have this utopia of right wing facts because most of them are oversimplification. Tremendously.
‘Right wing sources’ are just lies at this point: white genocide, taxing rich people is communism, climate change isn’t real, women don’t deserve rights because god doesn’t recognize them as human, more cops make society safer, more prisons make society more free, more gun sales make society safer, trans people commit every crime and are the cause of every economic failed policy, the global elites (billionaires) are going to help us fight the real global elites (college kids, moms).
Like idk man I just don’t see a way anyone honest can make the claim that factuality is not politically aligned. If you want facts you have to bias towards facts, if that creates a political bias, that’s a problem for politicians not people interested reality.
Once you start trying to pander to all political groups you’ve abadoned factuality.
To fairly debate this, one would need to address your sweeping generalizations point by point. More importantly, right-wing sources aren’t a monolith. For example, Fox News largely supports Israel, while the Mises Institute opposes foreign intervention & Israel. Reducing such a broad spectrum of thought into a single monolith is inaccurate. It might evince how left-wing people, when tendentious (like right-wing people can be too, since we’re all flawed humans, including myself), can distort their political opposition’s perspective out of convenience or rational ignorance, i.e., they don’t have time to investigate what their opposition thinks.
I mean the problem with your critique is its dishonest: prominent right wingers like elon musk promote white genocide conspiricies. Every one of those fake ass conspiricies I mentioned has been stated by a prominent republican.
In order to “balance the scales” you have to embark on campaign of finding like online commenters or drunk kids on the street to get the same level of insanity of belief on the left. Then you have to pretend like actual prominent people are saying these things on the left. Which they aren’t.
All you’re doing is saying that you are willing to argue against reality in order to pander to liars and comfort them.
Honestly, white populations are being replaced through open-border policies. I’m not really a tribal person, so I don’t particularly care about maintaining a population with any specific demographic makeup. I also wouldn’t say that ideas about population replacement are necessarily fake or something like that. I do currently support controlled borders for a nation-state, but not because I want to control the ethnic composition of the population. In my opinion, that kind of thinking is strange and overly tribal.
Excuse me but could you explain what an “open border policy” even is? Are you talking about visas for skilled labor? Is this something to do with migrant seasonal labor? Refugee programs?
What the fuck are you even talking about? There’s not a single goddamn country in the world that meets the criteria for some definitions of “open borders” and other defitions are met by every single country on earth.
Supporting or not supporting “open borders” is not a political stance because there’s no meaning to the words, its nonsense.
It’s one of those terms that means different things to different people, which can cause problems when discussing policy, similar to how people use the term “democratic socialism.” The literal definition of “open borders” would be an anarchic policy. The context in which I used the term, which you probably didn’t understand, perhaps due to a poor explanation on my part, was referring to open borders as a lack of adequate enforcement or supervision of the border (which, in effect, is an open border), with enough immigration to shift electoral outcomes or to supplant a native population’s norms, culture, etc.
So what you’re saying is “open borders” is used to describe a “feeling” you have about the border. Its not a factual description, its not an objective description, its an emotional invokation of a feeling you have regarding the border and like tourists from mexico or something.
Perhaps because right wing sources have a higher tendency to create disinformation and fabricate facts than left. As an example today most far right wing politics in Western countries seem to be based on dangers of a non-existing enemy. Similarly Russian troll farms generally disseminate right wing ideologies in the form of distorted facts. Staying center for a knowledge source is the ideal but if I had to pick a side would definitely go center left.
Honestly, this comment of yours is probably more a reflection of your own values than of reality.
It is possible that right-wing sources, or particular types of right-wing sources, have a greater tendency to create disinformation or fabricate facts than left-wing sources. However, the opposite could also be true in some cases; left-wing sources may sometimes be more likely to label their opposition’s claims as misinformation rather than recognizing them as competing interpretations or arguments.
For example, some sources labeled certain claims about natural immunity after exposure to the virus, including claims that it could provide stronger protection than boosters in some circumstances, as misinformation. However, certainty in any broad generalization, such as the idea that natural immunity is always better, hybrid immunity is always better, or mRNA vaccines are always better, would be inaccurate. The reality is that the effectiveness of different forms of immunity depends on many factors, & people continue to study how these factors interact. Outcomes can vary depending on individual circumstances, such as age, comorbidities, immune status, prior exposure, and other whatnot.
more a reflection of your own values than of reality
Hard to say how much one’s comments are affected by values but anyone who says they are completely unaffected is discussing in bad faith. So I won’t claim it does not.
It is possible that right-wing sources,
Yes but one is ideological agression (left-wing) the other one is fact fabrication (right-wing). If I had to choose one I would still go for the first despite it being far from ideal. I do believe that both sides have a tendency to leave out facts that don’t support their priors (consciously or unconsciously) but fact fabrication comes from the “ends justifies the means” perspective which I think leans more heavily to the right wing as of now (might not always been as such though).
For example, some sources labeled certain claims about natural immunity after exposure to the virus
Imagine the following case: Assume we have the following as facts (I am not claiming it is):
1- Infection confers more broad immunity than vaccines.
2- People at risk (elderly, newborn, low immunity) have a much higher risk of dying from a newly encountered virus (COVID) when they get infected without a vaccination.
3- In general people have a higher probability of hospitalization if they encounter a virus for the first time and without having been vaccinated.
If now a certain source of information takes this and only presents part 1 because in their ideology vaccination is wrong and they want to prove it, then this source of information is still wrong despite showing something correct. Not only they are wrong but they may bias people’s perspective so as to actually cause harm against others. In this case you may remove this source for its purpose and not because what it presents is wrong. It only uses a piece of the information to distort perspective. Without seeing the original discussion as to why that source was removed I can not really justify or condemn the action that was performed there. Do you have a link to the discussion?
Is wikipedia biased or are the facts just generally not in favor of the right wing side of politics?
Is wikipedia rejecting right wing sources or does right wing media just have a higher than average tendancy to cater to public opinion with “editorial liberties”?
This is not the first time I hear people essentially brand wikipedia as left wing, but it would be the first time somebody actually proved that sentiment with some examples that proves factual right wing sources are actively rejected.
I have no problem with the idea that reality and therefore wikipedia could be left leaning, but that’s only a problem if it’s forced to look that way.
I don’t think it is.
Here’s a direct source for Wikipedia’s own position on source reliability. I could send you someone’s interpretation of it, but those interpretations would introduce another layer of bias, so it’s better to look at the source itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger have both criticized Wikipedia in ways similar to my own criticisms, but they share some of my biases, which might cause you to dismiss their views as well if you already have a strong opinion on the matter.
there’s a reason Wikipedia only trusts NYP for stuff like pop culture and not politics
Wikipedia is heavily biased in favor of center-left viewpoints. It doesn’t allow similar right-wing sources to be cited in the same way that it allows similar left-wing ones. My solution to Wikipedia’s bias problem would be to add bias labels to edits & users instead of banning sources along partisan lines. Users could voluntarily identify their own biases, and other users could dispute those labels if they believed they were inaccurate. P.S. Wikipedia and Reddit are major contributors to why LLMs tend to have that left-of-center bias.
“[Reality] is heavily biased in favor of
centerleft view points.”I wouldn’t say that; sometimes statistics, like crime statistics, are distorted at the point of collection. The misclassification of non-white offenders as “white” in crime statistics leads to an overrepresentation of white crime in the USA, which racist people could probably use as fuel for their perceived persecution.
In the UK, you’ll see Pakistanis being labeled as Asian, which would lead people to joke that Japanese people are doing X or Y crimes. In the USA, you’ll see Arabic or other non-stereotypical white names, and pictures of people obviously not white, being labeled as white.
P.S. I don’t support any racist whatnot; it’s just a notable example of data collection skewing a statistic and causing an overrepresentation of crimes committed by so-called white people.
The FBI’s White Crime Numbers Count More Than White Americans
That source is some guy’s blog masquerading as a newspaper. Also, even if it’s accurate, I don’t see how “whites” (which has always been a malleable term) being marginally overrepresented in some subset of crime statistics is worth anyone’s attention at this point. How is this of value to anyone except white supremacists trying to pretend their ideology is supported by facts?
It’s probably the wrong example to bring up, even if it is true, since it’s likely to elicit an emotional response that undermines the delivery of the original intent of my point: that data collection is a point where the statistics people rely on are often skewed.
Can you provide non-blog sources?
Complaining about bias and then throwing out a random guys blog post is kinda embarrassing mate. Maybe you should delete your account.
The main point is that flawed data collection is skewing the results. I don’t remember where to find the one with the mugshots to be honest.
“In response to a directive by the U.S. Government’s Office of Management and Budget, the national UCR Program has expanded its data collection categories for race from four (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Asian or Other Pacific Islander) to five (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander). Also, the ethnicity categories have changed from “Hispanic” to “Hispanic or Latino Origin” and from “Non-Hispanic” to “Not of Hispanic or Latino Origin.” These changes will be reflected in data presented for 2013.”
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2011/resources/about-the-uniform-crime-reporting-ucr-program
Getting back to your original point, is the idea that certain races commit more crimes a left versus right thing in your perspective? I’d like to clarify that before I look at fifteen year old data.
I’m gonna be honest, most parts in history are center-left. You’re not gonna have this utopia of right wing facts because most of them are oversimplification. Tremendously.
‘Right wing sources’ are just lies at this point: white genocide, taxing rich people is communism, climate change isn’t real, women don’t deserve rights because god doesn’t recognize them as human, more cops make society safer, more prisons make society more free, more gun sales make society safer, trans people commit every crime and are the cause of every economic failed policy, the global elites (billionaires) are going to help us fight the real global elites (college kids, moms).
Like idk man I just don’t see a way anyone honest can make the claim that factuality is not politically aligned. If you want facts you have to bias towards facts, if that creates a political bias, that’s a problem for politicians not people interested reality.
Once you start trying to pander to all political groups you’ve abadoned factuality.
To fairly debate this, one would need to address your sweeping generalizations point by point. More importantly, right-wing sources aren’t a monolith. For example, Fox News largely supports Israel, while the Mises Institute opposes foreign intervention & Israel. Reducing such a broad spectrum of thought into a single monolith is inaccurate. It might evince how left-wing people, when tendentious (like right-wing people can be too, since we’re all flawed humans, including myself), can distort their political opposition’s perspective out of convenience or rational ignorance, i.e., they don’t have time to investigate what their opposition thinks.
I mean the problem with your critique is its dishonest: prominent right wingers like elon musk promote white genocide conspiricies. Every one of those fake ass conspiricies I mentioned has been stated by a prominent republican.
In order to “balance the scales” you have to embark on campaign of finding like online commenters or drunk kids on the street to get the same level of insanity of belief on the left. Then you have to pretend like actual prominent people are saying these things on the left. Which they aren’t.
All you’re doing is saying that you are willing to argue against reality in order to pander to liars and comfort them.
Honestly, white populations are being replaced through open-border policies. I’m not really a tribal person, so I don’t particularly care about maintaining a population with any specific demographic makeup. I also wouldn’t say that ideas about population replacement are necessarily fake or something like that. I do currently support controlled borders for a nation-state, but not because I want to control the ethnic composition of the population. In my opinion, that kind of thinking is strange and overly tribal.
Excuse me but could you explain what an “open border policy” even is? Are you talking about visas for skilled labor? Is this something to do with migrant seasonal labor? Refugee programs?
What the fuck are you even talking about? There’s not a single goddamn country in the world that meets the criteria for some definitions of “open borders” and other defitions are met by every single country on earth.
Supporting or not supporting “open borders” is not a political stance because there’s no meaning to the words, its nonsense.
It’s one of those terms that means different things to different people, which can cause problems when discussing policy, similar to how people use the term “democratic socialism.” The literal definition of “open borders” would be an anarchic policy. The context in which I used the term, which you probably didn’t understand, perhaps due to a poor explanation on my part, was referring to open borders as a lack of adequate enforcement or supervision of the border (which, in effect, is an open border), with enough immigration to shift electoral outcomes or to supplant a native population’s norms, culture, etc.
So what you’re saying is “open borders” is used to describe a “feeling” you have about the border. Its not a factual description, its not an objective description, its an emotional invokation of a feeling you have regarding the border and like tourists from mexico or something.
chud
Perhaps because right wing sources have a higher tendency to create disinformation and fabricate facts than left. As an example today most far right wing politics in Western countries seem to be based on dangers of a non-existing enemy. Similarly Russian troll farms generally disseminate right wing ideologies in the form of distorted facts. Staying center for a knowledge source is the ideal but if I had to pick a side would definitely go center left.
Honestly, this comment of yours is probably more a reflection of your own values than of reality.
It is possible that right-wing sources, or particular types of right-wing sources, have a greater tendency to create disinformation or fabricate facts than left-wing sources. However, the opposite could also be true in some cases; left-wing sources may sometimes be more likely to label their opposition’s claims as misinformation rather than recognizing them as competing interpretations or arguments.
For example, some sources labeled certain claims about natural immunity after exposure to the virus, including claims that it could provide stronger protection than boosters in some circumstances, as misinformation. However, certainty in any broad generalization, such as the idea that natural immunity is always better, hybrid immunity is always better, or mRNA vaccines are always better, would be inaccurate. The reality is that the effectiveness of different forms of immunity depends on many factors, & people continue to study how these factors interact. Outcomes can vary depending on individual circumstances, such as age, comorbidities, immune status, prior exposure, and other whatnot.
Hard to say how much one’s comments are affected by values but anyone who says they are completely unaffected is discussing in bad faith. So I won’t claim it does not.
Yes but one is ideological agression (left-wing) the other one is fact fabrication (right-wing). If I had to choose one I would still go for the first despite it being far from ideal. I do believe that both sides have a tendency to leave out facts that don’t support their priors (consciously or unconsciously) but fact fabrication comes from the “ends justifies the means” perspective which I think leans more heavily to the right wing as of now (might not always been as such though).
Imagine the following case: Assume we have the following as facts (I am not claiming it is):
1- Infection confers more broad immunity than vaccines.
2- People at risk (elderly, newborn, low immunity) have a much higher risk of dying from a newly encountered virus (COVID) when they get infected without a vaccination.
3- In general people have a higher probability of hospitalization if they encounter a virus for the first time and without having been vaccinated.
If now a certain source of information takes this and only presents part 1 because in their ideology vaccination is wrong and they want to prove it, then this source of information is still wrong despite showing something correct. Not only they are wrong but they may bias people’s perspective so as to actually cause harm against others. In this case you may remove this source for its purpose and not because what it presents is wrong. It only uses a piece of the information to distort perspective. Without seeing the original discussion as to why that source was removed I can not really justify or condemn the action that was performed there. Do you have a link to the discussion?
Reality sometimes has a left-wing bias…
Wikipedia has its bias shaped by the sources it allows users to cite. It could be correlated with reality, but I do not believe that to be the case.
🤤
Is wikipedia biased or are the facts just generally not in favor of the right wing side of politics? Is wikipedia rejecting right wing sources or does right wing media just have a higher than average tendancy to cater to public opinion with “editorial liberties”?
This is not the first time I hear people essentially brand wikipedia as left wing, but it would be the first time somebody actually proved that sentiment with some examples that proves factual right wing sources are actively rejected.
I have no problem with the idea that reality and therefore wikipedia could be left leaning, but that’s only a problem if it’s forced to look that way. I don’t think it is.
Here’s a direct source for Wikipedia’s own position on source reliability. I could send you someone’s interpretation of it, but those interpretations would introduce another layer of bias, so it’s better to look at the source itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger have both criticized Wikipedia in ways similar to my own criticisms, but they share some of my biases, which might cause you to dismiss their views as well if you already have a strong opinion on the matter.
Larry Sanger bias drama discussed from a perspective likely closer to your own bias. - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/business/media/wikipedia-larry-sanger-barred.html
https://wiki.encyclosphere.org/WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity
Larry Sanger - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger Jimmy Wales - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales
P.S. It’s possible to dislike right-wingers and still acknowledge that Wikipedia has a bias problem.