https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
You can notice a bias towards the state media from pro-capitalist regimes from the above.
This page in a nutshell: Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.
Verifiability is as important as truth.
But reliable sources are biased!
From WP:BIASED (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources).
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
(Bolding mine)
But reliable sources are chosen by biased contributors!
OP attached to their comic repost RSP columns.
- Deutsche Welle: Reliability was never discussed in an RFC. Anyone complaining here of bias does not acknowledge their possibility (if they are not banned) of making an RFC on it.
- Voice of America: Discussed on RSN a few times. The last one is pretty interesting: Here
- Xinhua: Discussed here. ITT: It’s quite old, but Xinhua is very controversial.
- Telesur: Discussed here around seven years ago. Quite conclusive, I would say.
I think you may have misunderstood point of that image.
It not on the sources being biased(there are no unbiased sources), but noting the easily notable bias in the Wikipedia source selection, the preference for media funded by pro-capitalist regimes.
Do you see an issue in noting how Wikipedia has this bias, and going against the notion by some that it is unbiased or neutral?
Yes, because the “easily-notable bias” is just a result of discussions done at different times to different evidence, and claiming bias is an overgeneralization.
Bias just means that you have a worldview, which everyone has whether they acknowledge it or not simply by living and existing in the real world.
Ok, but I wasn’t the one implying Wikipedia editors as a group are biased.
They are. Everyone has a bias.
Me:
as a group
You:
everyone
Groups usually cancel bias. And the leftover bias is not “easily notable”
Groups do not cancel bias. Wikipedia is overwhelmingly western, which becomes a western bias. Groups reinforce bias.
groups usually cancel bias
Lmao, so we’re just saying shit now, alright. Famously unbiased:
- The police
- Lynch mobs
- Academic institutions
- Think tanks
- The KKK
- The Clergy
- A group of children
I think you struggle to understand what the word “bias” means. It seems like it just short-circuits in your brain to “bad”. A group typically enforce the bias inherent to it.
It requires actively being aware of ones’ bias to counteract it, which is one of many reasons why Wikipedias presentation as a “neutral” source of knowledge is an issue. Because it makes doofuses like you trust it like gospel and react like fanatics to the heresy that maybe the website founded by a zionist, with a longtime issue with power-users (not to mention the infiltration of Nazis that gets brought up once in a while in a feelgood story about someone taking them on), a rule against
being critical of "approved sourcesinvestegationmaking use of primary sources, an arbitrary approach as to how trustworthy a source is (the main judgement of which seems to be “do they reinforce state dept. talking points?”); well, it might have some issues.
