• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bias in Wikipedia

Tim the plumber

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,829
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

133,612 edits to Wikpedia have been made in the name of “Philip Cross” over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week. And I do not use that figuratively: Wikipedia edits are timed, and if you plot them, the timecard for “Philip Cross’s” Wikipedia activity is astonishing is astonishing if it is one individual:
Click to expand...

There seems, according to the blog, to be a campaign of disinformation opperating on Wikipedia.
 
Which is why wiki never has been, nor never will, accepted as a legitimate source for citation, saddly. Wiki is awesome, but the truth is, there is no secure process to verify the info posted. Some could say the same about encyclopedias...but at least those have a peer reviewed consensus concerning their facts. I don't believe there is any real peer review of wiki.
 
Tim the plumber said:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/



There seems, according to the blog, to be a campaign of disinformation opperating on Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

So, a left wing historian is complaining that a right winger can edit Wikipedia articles. Nothing new about that. Left wingers don't think right wingers should have any voice at all in any media platform.

Nothing at all about specifics of the edits and how much truth there is to them. All you have to know is that Philip Cross is a right winger.
 
LowDown said:
So, a left wing historian is complaining that a right winger can edit Wikipedia articles. Nothing new about that. Left wingers don't think right wingers should have any voice at all in any media platform.

Nothing at all about specifics of the edits and how much truth there is to them. All you have to know is that Philip Cross is a right winger.
Click to expand...

A person who changes another's personal details is well off.

I realise that you are an extreme partisan on this but the rules should be fair to all.
 
Wikipedia is a good place to begin researching a topic. In these days counting solely on Wiki is akin to watching only FOX/CNN, your pick.......
 
"Truth" in the digital age is both fluid and illusory. When governments can change documents in official archives and business do the same as well, then is it any wonder that wikis are the same? Critical analysis and doing your own homework are still necessary tools for responsible, well-informed to avoid being hoodwinked by media bias, political partisanship and out-right lies.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
LowDown said:
So, a left wing historian is complaining that a right winger can edit Wikipedia articles. Nothing new about that. Left wingers don't think right wingers should have any voice at all in any media platform.

Nothing at all about specifics of the edits and how much truth there is to them. All you have to know is that Philip Cross is a right winger.
Click to expand...

I think the point actually is that Phillip Cross is apparently not an individual. At 30 edits every day, "he" is either a group of people or he is unemployed and does nothing but edit Wikipedia articles.
 
Rexedgar said:
Wikipedia is a good place to begin researching a topic. In these days counting solely on Wiki is akin to watching only FOX/CNN, your pick.......
Click to expand...

Remember that picture of a college professor's desk with a sign on it that says, " I don't care what Wikipedia says".
 
danielpalos said:
That is the whole point of a globally accessible, encyclopedia; it is not just, one person doing all the work.
Click to expand...

A remarkable amount of biased work being done by one person who seems to have the support of the Wiki-central administration.
 
Evilroddy said:
"Truth" in the digital age is both fluid and illusory. When governments can change documents in official archives and business do the same as well, then is it any wonder that wikis are the same? Critical analysis and doing your own homework are still necessary tools for responsible, well-informed to avoid being hoodwinked by media bias, political partisanship and out-right lies.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Ya...I mean, I'll use Wiki, but only if the information has a citation that I can check out, if the information is sketchy. At least you can do that with Wikipedia, unlike most of what you see in the media. It's the wild west, but even the wild west has better rules than what you watch on TV or pick up off the internet or newspaper. :lol:
 
OlNate said:
Ya...I mean, I'll use Wiki, but only if the information has a citation that I can check out, if the information is sketchy. At least you can do that with Wikipedia, unlike most of what you see in the media. It's the wild west, but even the wild west has better rules than what you watch on TV or pick up off the internet or newspaper. :lol:
Click to expand...

I go into wiki knowing that anyone can edit it, and some subjects attract distorting edits. It actually wouldn't surprise me if there were operations posting distorting wiki edits professionally.
 
KevinKohler said:
Which is why wiki never has been, nor never will, accepted as a legitimate source for citation, saddly. Wiki is awesome, but the truth is, there is no secure process to verify the info posted. Some could say the same about encyclopedias...but at least those have a peer reviewed consensus concerning their facts. I don't believe there is any real peer review of wiki.
Click to expand...

That is a problem for Wikipedia but that is going to be a problem as long as there is a CIA, NSA, "Homeland Security" [that is such a Nazi/totalitarian/Heil Hitler sounding name].

How many times, as a school kid, did you cite something from an American encyclopedia?

There was never any peer review of the Founding Terrorists, look how long the honest G Washington, Johnny Appleseed kind of crap lasted. Though it seems that some honesty is beginning to appear on the scene.
 
Personally, I am skeptical of anybody who claims 'The Jews are out to silence' them, or the 'British Government'. He also seems to be very much into conspiracy theories. As such, I am skeptical about his claims and conclusions.
 
camlok said:
That is a problem for Wikipedia but that is going to be a problem as long as there is a CIA, NSA, "Homeland Security" [that is such a Nazi/totalitarian/Heil Hitler sounding name].

How many times, as a school kid, did you cite something from an American encyclopedia?

There was never any peer review of the Founding Terrorists, look how long the honest G Washington, Johnny Appleseed kind of crap lasted. Though it seems that some honesty is beginning to appear on the scene.
Click to expand...

Where are your citations from?
 
KevinKohler said:
Which is why wiki never has been, nor never will, accepted as a legitimate source for citation, saddly. Wiki is awesome, but the truth is, there is no secure process to verify the info posted. Some could say the same about encyclopedias...but at least those have a peer reviewed consensus concerning their facts. I don't believe there is any real peer review of wiki.
Click to expand...

They way to use Wikipedias to follow the links footnoted in brackets in the body of the article. They link uou to more scholarly sources.
 
Wikipedia is made by people, people are biased.
 
danielpalos said:
it is on a volunteer basis; there only so many subject matter specialists; the rest seem to be, merely story tellers.
Click to expand...

It is good to know that it has people professionally modifying it to spread propaganda.
 
Grand Mal said:
They way to use Wikipedias to follow the links footnoted in brackets in the body of the article. They link uou to more scholarly sources.
Click to expand...

Unless the ones that disagree with their naritive have been removed.
 
rocket88 said:
I think the point actually is that Phillip Cross is apparently not an individual. At 30 edits every day, "he" is either a group of people or he is unemployed and does nothing but edit Wikipedia articles.
Click to expand...

Thirty edits a day would be easy as long as they are mostly fairly brief. Even assuming it's 4 hours of free time it's 8 minutes an edit.

It doesn't really matter. The beef is that a right winger can do this. The outrage!
 
LowDown said:
Thirty edits a day would be easy as long as they are mostly fairly brief. Even assuming it's 4 hours of free time it's 8 minutes an edit.

It doesn't really matter. The beef is that a right winger can do this. The outrage!
Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly, the point flew way over your head in your rush to be persecuted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom