Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

snozzberrypatch t1_jausb3s wrote

Reply to comment by chugga_fan in [OC] Wikipedia Edits by Day, 2001–2010 by ptgorman

>If it isn't left-wing it's instantly overthrown from the reasonable scale if it's at all political.

There it is. You don't like Wikipedia because it doesn't let you push your agenda. I typically stay far away from political articles, partly because I don't buy into political theater, and partly because I'm not attracted to drama. With that said... considering how much disinformation, brainwashing, and propaganda has been generated by the American right wing in the last decade or so, it's no surprise that a right winger such as yourself would feel frustrated, since all of your media sources aren't considered reliable (and rightly so) and many of your closely-held beliefs are probably dismissed as nonsense by many other editors.

It may be true that Wikipedia has a slight left wing bias, mostly owing to the fact that writing encyclopedia articles is a scholarly pursuit and therefore WP editors tend to be educated (and left wing folks are statically more likely to be highly educated than right wing folks), but my guess is that any actual bias on WP is a lot less than what someone in your position perceives it as.

22

chugga_fan t1_jaussu8 wrote

> There it is. You don't like Wikipedia because it doesn't let you push your agenda

Brother I gave you fucking examples of actual human beings who did nothing wrong and got banned for it.

Get your head outside the board's behinds and see the truth of the matter that there is actual research into the bias of wikipedia and its overreliance of dubious quality secondary sources whose bias is well known to be genuinely awful.

The Guardian is not a news source that is at all neutral. Huffington Post is even worse. CNN and Fox News are decent. MSNBC is a shitshow with occasional news. So why the fuck are the first two even accepted as a reliable source? You don't fucking accept OANN, so why the fuck are the dumpster fires of the left wing accepted?

It's because you unironically cannot see your own bias.

> considering how much disinformation, brainwashing, and propaganda has been generated by the American right wing in the last decade

There's exactly one popular right wing news network in the United States, you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

−15

snozzberrypatch t1_jauwlb4 wrote

Lmao you're putting MSNBC and HuffPost in the same category as OANN? Sorry, but you're a fucking moron. Hopelessly brainwashed by the propaganda.

Do MSNBC and HuffPost have a bias? Sure. But at least they don't report conspiracy theories as is they're facts. There's a difference between having a partisan bias that colors your reporting, and reporting blatant falsehoods about how the election was stolen and Trump is still the president.

Get a grip dude. You're blinded by the brainwashing.

16

chugga_fan t1_jaw0yo2 wrote

> Lmao you're putting MSNBC and HuffPost in the same category as OANN?

MSNBC is occasionally good.

Huffington post at best is a glorified opinion piece.

Get your head out of the sand and fucking see the world for what it is.

"I don't have my head in the sand" - Man who says the Huffington Post is accurate reporting.

I do love how you don't even bother with the fact that I mention the Gaurdian, which is OBJECTIVELY a worse version of the Huffington Post.

0

snozzberrypatch t1_jaw33q4 wrote

Keep watching OANN dude. The ultimate source for all of your confirmation bias needs.

You can mention all the news sources you want, the fact is there is nothing on the left that is even remotely equivalent to something like OANN, at least not that I'm aware of, or if it does exist it's on the extreme fringe and doesn't attract a lot of viewers. You people treat OANN like it's fuckin Reuters. Pretty sad.

2

chugga_fan t1_jaw3t45 wrote

> Keep watching OANN dude.

I don't watch news media because it's all garbage takes from CNN and Fox News to The Gaurdian and OANN.

All of it's trash yellow journalism disguised as information on the ground.

Find a local reliable outlet and read the print section occasionally and take it with a fucking grain of salt.

> Thinking I give a flying fuck about OANN

I use them as the case of being an extreme right-wing bias, why the FUCK do you think I think it's neutral btw? Why the hell are the only people arguing about this with me unable to parse an english sentence?

0

SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_javyb5q wrote

> Brother I gave you fucking examples of actual human beings who did nothing wrong and got banned for it.

You gave one example and it literally wasn't a parsable English sentence. So you gave zero examples.

0

chugga_fan t1_jaw0sfn wrote

> You gave one example and it literally wasn't a parsable English sentence. So you gave zero examples.

T.D Adler, Ryulong, Carl Benjamin's page where he's accused of harassment despite direct video evidence proving to the contrary (again the secondary sources bias). The entire scientific journal on how the holocaust pages are biased in favor of forgetting polish crimes.

"One example"

1

SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_jaw3cdv wrote

Are you now saying that "ryulong" did nothing wrong? Thought you were saying the opposite.

This is the first time you've mentioned the third person.

So yeah... Literally actually one example

1

chugga_fan t1_jaw3ho0 wrote

I only passingly mention Carl, T.D Adler did nothing wrong for calling out CoI on admins. Ryulong is a pagesquatter who still fundamentally shapes that page to this day.

You are actually just illiterate.

1

SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_jaw4l22 wrote

I'm illiterate huh. Interesting. So count for me, how many examples of:

> actual human beings who did nothing wrong and got banned for it.

, which is the thing I quoted and replied to, had you given.

Hint: it's one.

1