Wikipedia's Bias

I love Wikipedia! I even donated to it. But I won't donate again, now that I've learned how BIASED Wikipedia has become.
----
To make sure you see the new weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: www.johnstossel.com/#subscribe
----
No right-leaning outlets, Fox News Politics, the Daily Wire, the Daily Caller, etc… is considered “reliable” by Wikipedia. None.
But even some of the most extreme leftist outlets get a "reliable" badge -- like “Jacobin," a self-described SOCIALIST outlet.
Vox, Buzzfeed News, and Slate are also deemed “reliable” by Wikipedia. Editors may base stories on their reporting.
Why did Wikipedia become so biased? Veteran Wikipedian Jonathan Weiss tells me that the site, like academia, has been captured by leftists.
Some Wikipedia administrators even brag on their profiles, "this user is a socialist." Another put up images idolizing communist murderers Che Guevara and Vladimir Lenin.
These administrators make final decisions about what counts as “reliable," and what goes on Wikipedia.
That’s why for years, Wiki's "communism" page made NO mention of the millions killed by that ideology.
US border facilities are listed under "concentration camps,” on the same page as Wikipedia’s holocaust facilities.
Can we fix this? Wikipedia is supposed to be a site that "anyone can edit," so I made an edit. You can find out what happened in the video above.

[@TheRoseBoy11]

Maybe my teachers were right this whole time about not using Wikipedia as a source for my projects.

[@CheeseCheetah]

Just don’t use it for politics and you are fine.

[@tdgdbs1]

But for a different reason.

[@LizRealGirlBeauty]

It's still a good place to get links to primary and secondary sources, just use them, see what they say and if they're accurate use those as your source. But no, never use it as your source. And look at each link to make sure they're accurate and valid. I've seen bad links still used as sources.

[@Mr.Ogynist]

I think most teachers just see it as the laziest way of finding information. Throw in the evident bias being promoted through unfair gatekeeping and all of the sudden even recent history can be altered or skewed. The sad part of all this is how normal it is for members of this new cultish left to omit facts, gatekeep platforms like Wikipedia and pre-Musk twitter and sometimes straight up lie to protect their position. When your ideas cannot hold up to rigorous debate and you need to live in echo chambers because any debate is an unsafe space, your values and truth are mutually exclusive.

[@bigtechisbigbrother8690]

@@CheeseCheetah No, it's unreliable on history as well. Left bias to the point of outright falsifying information.

[@brendanflynn5004]

It was naive to think that the original idea of Wikipedia being “edited by everyone” wouldn’t be high-jacked by radicals.

[@polcherdiamwongsrikul121]

Z

[@lememz]

@@polcherdiamwongsrikul121 we zposting now?

[@thisyherechannel6801]

Its Hijacked by the shadow government not the left as he said!

[@SierraSierraFoxtrot]

Wikipedia is amazing for anything non-political. Sadly there are people who will politicise everything...

[@raidergainzx5290]

Oh that bias exists in most categories. Dont be mistaken.

[@brunohale]

Using Wikipedias definition, define the word; Woman Cause last I knew, it fell under biological science

[@markmatt9174]

Found over 10 yrs ago that hard facts were or are now incorrect on Wikipedia. Get some OLD history books and compair known facts. I stopped using it in 2015, when doing a research paper for college when I went back at 50 to finish my BSEE.

[@not_glad]

This! The problem is the difference in world views which is very all encompassing. I just don't understand why they are the way they are.

[@Gadottinho]

@@brunohale not anymore, unfortunately, that's what the OP said, leftoids will make everything political, therefore, basically all wikipedia is leftist garbage

[@zaidhernandez4601]

It's particularly worrying because Wikipedia basically controls most information people obtain, even on KZbin

[@christerry1773]

overall it’s non-political and needs to stay that way. I’m sure there are instances where something may be more aligned with right wing

[@hadriansdog499]

The "Tower of Babel" story from the Bible comes to mind at this moment. Too much information. So much so that you can't tell truth from fiction. Man's greatest weakness is thinking that we know everything there is to know, when we can't even sort out something as basic as men and women. The more we talk, the less we make sense.

[@Alpha-vb3to]

@@hadriansdog499 Is like you have all information in the world, and everything is administrated and checked by psicopaths.

[@MrVidification]

​@@christerry1773it'll be hijacked by both left and right activists and general users, pointing to sources as proof but reinterpreting for the wiki page

[@luigimrlgaming9484]

@@christerry1773No, Wikipedia has a definite left-wing bias.

[@rider92131]

The only error in this piece is that it describes the Wikipedia left wing bias as a relatively new thing. It's existed for AT LEAST 15 years (the service began in 2000). I'm a libertarian-leaning political/economic analyst. About a decade ago I tried to correct some biased articles about government public employee labor unions and taxes -- especially California's famous Prop 13. I always provided reputable sources, theoretically a strong point in Wikipedia. Didn't matter. Almost almost all of my factually correct and properly annotated posts -- focusing on SPECIFIC facts -- were quickly taken down. I soon realized that on political and policy issues, Wikipedia is so biased that it's WORSE than useless.

[@smokedbrisket3033]

Yep, I tried to correct some stuff 10 or 12 years ago. It was edited out within a couple hours. I haven't bothered with it since.

[@honkhonk8009]

Why is it always the commies that that want massive amounts of power and control over things. I feel that people that gravitate towards Communism/Fascism are really just people who like control and like the power trip involved with it.

[@_APG_]

Same here, stopped using it. It just became another echo chamber.

[@AmigaWolf]

@@smokedbrisket3033 Same here, also edited on Wikipedia, and was also removed, even when it was true. More and more stuff on Wikipedia has become useless, and cannot be trusted.

[@jasonking6788]

100% correct, Wales is a "LINO"

[@timothypryor7952]

I was an editor on wikipedia for a long time. I had about 3000 edits some of which were articles I basically wrote entirely myself. But when my edits started getting removed despite having accurate cited sources I gave up. There is no point in putting effort into a website that will take down accurate information just because someone doesn't like it.

[@jessephillips8319]

That is definitely unfortunate, it seems that it takes a lot of effort to get real information onto Wikipedia and for it to hold. I find that articles people complain are biased end up having all the information they claim it is lacking. Though I still agree the article is written in a bias tongue.

[@peterclark6290]

A 'simple fix' would be to introduce competition, i.e., to have the different editor's content separated and highlighted according to their declared bias, Pink, Blue, etc. The competing analyses or facts sit side by side. To automate it the second editor needs to 'box' what he felt was incorrect, supply his own 'take' and walk away. What better way is there to expose the inanity of extreme arguments? We need more Centrists. We'll get you back Timothy.

[@miketackabery7521]

@@peterclark6290 oh for heaven's sake please quit with your silly "simple fix". You've been posting it all over and it's neither simple, nor a fix. Wikipedia is perfectly happy with it's obnoxious and lying behavior, and because it has no competition it has NO REASON to fix itself. And even if it did (an insanely big if), every editor would deny their label so how the hell would you put them in a special box?

[@peterclark6290]

@@miketackabery7521 Hence the apostrophes, it was ironical. Of course it isn't simple but I couldn't write 'elegant' could I? However it is entirely possible (retired code cutter here: C, Cobol, IBM OS). Why would an individual want to 'deny' their bias, it is a deeply held and structural element of their world view. Most ideologues are like Vegans, they can't wait to shove it into the conversation. I'm not an editor of Wiki, I don't even have an account, so I am hoping, if I whisper in enough ears, to get someone to suggest it. Hence the shotgun approach. The second (third...) editor 'puts them in a box', I thought that part was clear. Having an opposing view both would want their lunacy to stay in public view. Users get to read them side-by-side: that's educational and a good brain exercise.

[@Spincat08]

@@jessephillips8319 I really hope that you are not the editor of anything.

[@paullangland6877]

I noticed their bias when they locked the Misandry page and simply dismissed the term and cited sociology scholars who pretty much believed the concept to be nonexistent. Or when controversies like Gamer Gate also got the same treatment.

[@Thanatos6]

That's not true at all. Misandry page isn't locked. It exists just fine like everything else. Where do you come up with this?

[@John.McMillan]

@@Thanatos6 I havent been on Wikipedia in a while but they definately locked alot of paged like that a while back.

[@paullangland6877]

@@Thanatos6 Because I saw it personally. I went on the page and they locked it.

[@eomoran]

@@Thanatos6 sometimes they temporarily lock pages if it’s under going mass edits

[@sirmount2636]

The Gamgergate page isn’t neutral @ all. & it’s locked.

[@ORLY911]

the problem with wikipedia isn't _individuals_ that are biased, it's entire groups of editors who blockade an article and fill it with biased perspectives to fulfill a narrative, down to making sure the sources line up with them as well, and deleting ones that run against their point.

[@tempejkl]

me when the cia edits wikipedia for a decade

[@thundercricket4634]

When I was a kid I felt guilty for never donating to Wikipedia. As an adult, I'm absolutely thrilled I never gave a cent to that cesspit.

[@AnontheGOAT]

So this.

[@alumicomp]

I have used WiKi for some years now and donated on occasion, but I never considered them to be the gospel..! John Stossel, is unique with his way of finding areas of deception that you don't normally consider, and after seeing this I will never donate again..!

[@robertferguson5562]

Your de man john s.

[@happy_thinking]

Wikipedia is not only politics, in fact politics and history are the least important topics there. Science, math, literature and all kinds of practical information can be found. I haven't donated either, but the project is still awesome even if improvements will make it nicer.

[@twofiveb]

If Wikipedia is so deceptive about information, why would they be transparent about what happens with donation dollars and where that money is going? I think I may have donated a small amount once but haven't since then and no regrets.

[@tonywillingham8109]

Wikipedia is the worst. I was a contributor for years, both financially and content, and was banned one day for asking the wrong question in one of the talk pages behind the scene were content providers discuss content ideas.

[@FleetingDream755]

Banned from a place that describes itself as open to everyone? No irony there and no double standards at all...

[@iamtheangiechrist1090]

What was the question you asked, if you don't mind?

[@tempname8263]

I am very curious in hearing more about this.

[@forest3064]

I am curious, what question did you ask to get banned?

[@NotEvenDeathCanSaveU]

I got banned asking tough questions about that most controversial event of ww2. The one that uses the number 6 a lot, the number that appeared in newspapers hundreds of times before the war, the number that has more of a religious political origin than a real one. Theres a ridiculous amount of discrepancies which if you point out you get canceled and called names even if your focus is facts, historical accuracy and science. These things are not a focus anymore. Truth has become a subjective thing so facts and actual undeniable scientific evidence becomes unwelcome or unnecessary. Everything is political nowadays and you cant escape it no matter how much you try, you always meet these fanatics and zealots.

[@flain283]

I stopped donating to Wikipedia 5 years ago when the "reliable sources" problem became more apparent to me. They still email me asking for donations, saying i donated more than 99.9% of what other users donate (i didn't donate much, like $5 or something), i do respond each time saying that they need to become less biased and more balanced.

[@TheCynicalAutist]

Technically it's true because most people don't pay XD

[@tempejkl]

Man really told the CIA to be less biased

[@BobGymlan]

I use Wikipedia for information about dinosaurs. That’s it.

[@cek0792]

Wikipedia is still quite clean of bias in scientific pages since it's often objective compared to political/historical pages.

[@lubu523]

Wait till Dinosaures enter the political spehere

[@spec24]

Trans-dinosaurs ARE dinosaurs!

[@kbur9292]

All dinosaurs were trans. What do you think the T in T-rex stands for?

[@johnpenguinthe3rd13]

I would still recommend going to websites which are more knowledgeable on Dinosaurs. Wikipedia leaves A LOT of things out.

[@davidturner9860]

Three months ago, Steven Crowder devoted an entire show to exposing Wikipedia's bias. He made factual edits to 9 different Wikipedia articles, consistent with their published guidelines, and supported by citations. All 9 were deleted by "editors."

[@Gitn2it]

You're right. It was quite the eye-opener. I have since stopped donating to Wikipedia. Bias has no place in an education forum.

[@silvergalaxie]

"editors" are all biased, no regard for type of bias. The supposed "empirical data" used had inverse, diverse, converse & perverse confirmational bias. Try a sample edit, "a person(choose anyone, including yourself)was born in 1April1743 & is living in Antarctica". See what 'appens. The most awful people delete themselves. That alone is rather telling. g5

[@xs10z]

Actually, Crowder's edits were based on primary sources, which is why they were removed... a concept which Crowder does not evidently understand, or if he does, he pretended not to because that made it easier to score points. His hit piece was actually rather clueless and cringe and was just another one of his patented circle jerks. Did that guy even go to college, except to perhaps set up card tables with "Prove Me Wrong" written on it in order to taunt the simple minded?

[@Nurhaal]

@@xs10z Only one of his edits was actually dubious and approximately 2 of those edits he made could've been construed as subjective statements embedded with the claim and citation provided, lending themselves to being targeted due to vague policy application. I don't care for Crowder at all, but you are beyond disingenuous.

[@allanshpeley4284]

@@xs10z Found the dishonest leftist

[@Mr.Ogynist]

If FACTS can be erased from a supposed “encyclopedia” it is no longer an encyclopedia.

[@SlowedAesthege]

It becomes a propaganda site. I don’t think you can reverse it back…

[@petermgruhn]

"Do leftists really now control the editing?" How many years late is this question?

[@frink32]

Well said.

[@abdulrazaqamedu3839]

I just finished arguing with a brother who doesn't believe wikipedia is bias. You're early bro.

[@grnarsch5287]

Non communist people would only edit for money

[@tempejkl]

Its been controlled by the CIA for a decade. So obviously not leftist

[@azuth11]

The first line of the Wikipedia entry for the documentary "2000 Mules" says quote "2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D'Souza that falsely says...". Thank you Wikipedia for making that determination for me. That was very neutral of you.

[@Terminxman]

They just cite an article from a journalist that also doesn’t support their claim with facts

[@osmarfreitas8646]

Information on Wikipedia is based on what reliable, reputable sources say. By stating that it has a "neutral point of view", Wikipedia means that it should not give too much emphasis on opinions that makes the encyclopedia seem that it has an opinion. In this case, the fact that the film is spreading false information is not an opinion, it is a fact widely reported by multiple reputable third party sources. After the word "falsely", the article cites reliable websites Associated Press, Politifact and The Washington Post. If Wikipedia's purpose is to fight misinformation, then it only makes sense to state what reputable fact-checking sources state right away. Even if the film was pro-democratic, but its factual accuracy had been challenged by reliable sources, Wikipedia would still say "falsely" (or something similar). The purpose of the word is to make it clear to the readers right away so that they don't get misled.

[@videofeist]

Right, how dare they tell you the truth early on. What jerks!

[@freddygarfunkle8947]

What other kind of film would it be

[@azuth11]

@@freddygarfunkle8947 A film that claims something for the audience to decide for themselves rather than a film that falsely says something as decided by biased Wikipedia.

[@ISuperI]

Anybody who has dug deep enough on Wikipedia will know that it's an ideological hell when we talk about a controversial subject or anything related to politics.

[@egonzalez4294]

I'd say it isn't so bad, consensus bias in some areas is something that occurs in a free society or system; if you go to a free square town, some ideas will be pushed hard by some hardcore believers even if these are false, and none gives much of a care to fix that; these are those wikipedia articles, they took them they care enough to spread their propaganda, and everyone else doesn't care enough to stop them. The answer is like the guy says, people have to care more, and take this ownership back and join and stop them; not censorship, not banning, etc... But bias will always exist in some way or another, it's a natural thing; and of course, political bias. But Wikipedia is also full of ethical biases, of course, it is overshadowed by the political bias.

[@MrSam2497]

"is Wikipedia a good source of information?" It depends. To get information about when some movie came out? It's great. To get information about politics? Absolutely not.

[@fanfanatik3144]

What about for studying history?

[@cek0792]

@@fanfanatik3144 Just be cautious. Leftist historical characters might have their historical sins wiped off or at least underemphasized contrary to right/centrist historical characters which are held on a different standard.

[@spec24]

"Is **insert desired source here** a good source of information?" It depends. To get information about **insert subject here**? It's great. To get information about **insert subject here** ? Absolutely not.

[@AAhmou]

They get dates good. And it is a somewhat good source for peer reviewed studies.

[@egezort]

Watch BadEmpanada's last video about the Holodomor and decide for yourself

[@jacobszymczak9323]

The only thing I used Wikipedia for was to see what references they cited and then use those directly of they were good as I remember being told from when Wikipedia was brand new to not trust it as a valid source of information. A source to find valid sources sure, but not a solid source itself

[@luisapaza317]

I only didn't used Wikipedia for political views. And I never will. Apart of that, I think is useful

[@cks7548]

@@luisapaza317 What won't you use Wikipedia for political views?

[@niev]

@@luisapaza317 You shouldn't use it for religion either and some other topics.

[@C4X3depresmo]

@@cks7548 Since wikipedia has an emphasis on using 'secondary' sources of information (News outlets, web articles interpreting information, etc) instead of primary sources, (IE research papers, or other places where data comes from directly) everything on Wikipedia concerning politics quickly becomes partisan nonsense. TLDR; Wikipedia articles use news networks 'interpretation' of what happened instead of what actually happened.

[@Moral_Imperative]

I use Wikipedia all the time -- mostly for finding about people or history who I am not familiar with -- and I find it to be an invaluable resource. For those of you who rely on the mainstream news media for your political insights and understanding of the world, I want to let you know that that this video is an attack not just on Wikipedia but on the true political left -- who are the real truth-tellers of the world. What John Stossel calls the left is actually the liberal political establishment (which is not liberal at all but more like a moderate neoliberal conservatism) -- which is a part of the hegemonic establishment that John Stossel and ABC NEWS and other corporate media and CIA backed news outlets online belong to. What is really bad, and has been for a very long time, for Americans to get their news from is the corporate owned major news outlets that pose themselves as independent but who in fact represent and reflect a very narrow range of the political spectrum. This is why most people never heard of Noam Chomsky, or Chris Hedges, or Edward Said, or Norman Finkelstein. If you don't want to learn about how things really work, stick with John Stossel and the corporate news media. Otherwise, check out public playlists Human Understanding or Anti-Establishment Education @rational-public-discourse.

[@specialepic2965]

One time on wikipedia studying roe v wade and I found that an editor lied about the 14th amendment and 9th and rephrased them A BUNCH. So yeah wikipedia is pretty biased..

[@eriksnider7189]

"A lot of information on that laptop was true." What would be on that laptop and not be true? Was Hunter writing a fan fic novel?

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

LOL, solid point.

[@orenalbertmeisel3127]

Good. We need people with large audiences to shed more light on Wikipedia's bias

[@peterclark6290]

A 'simple fix' would be to introduce competition, i.e., to have the different editor's content separated and highlighted according to their declared bias, Pink, Blue, etc. The competing analyses or facts sit side by side. To automate it the second editor needs to 'box' what he felt was incorrect, supply his own 'take' and walk away. What better way is there to expose the inanity of extreme arguments? We need more Centrists.

[@alphagt62]

So this guy is the owner of Wiki, but he acts as if he has no control over what is said on his own site? Wah?

[@Tempires]

@@alphagt62 wikipedia is owned by foundation. you need become editor yourself if you want to have control and no person can manage every article in every language. nor should manage

[@Adventurer-te8fl]

@alphgt62 There are over a billion different pages, how would they be able to monitor and control every single page? Especially the fact that new pages can be created everyday

[@slvrshore5300]

@@alphagt62 what?

[@annasdad8008]

Their science is often questionable too. Many articles are clearly written by people who don’t actually understand the science and regularly make claims they the references they provide actually contradict. The worst thing though is the nasty nature of their controlling editors. If you point out a mistake in a scientific or medical article, or that some article is from a biased perspective, their editors will immediately attack you personally. If you defend yourself your comments are immediately deleted and you are sent a warning - yet their attacks remain.

[@hausy]

I read a lot of Wikipedia while I’m working (I’m working, we just have intermittent down time, lol) and I find anything to do with politics to always be biased to the left. I can’t think of a single time I encountered a Wikipedia article that slanted right even slightly. Science topics and topics about history seem to be well balanced as far as I can tell.

[@noloferratus]

No they are not. Anyone who thinks the articles about NASA and space missions are based on reality are just deluding themselves.

[@dycedargselderbrother5353]

Wikipedia successfully chased away right-leaning people very early on. They ended up forming Conservapedia in 2006.

[@AD-gd2wy]

I remember reading articles about various members of Congress and for awhile they made sure to put in the lead if that Congressman voted to not certify Biden after the 2020 election. On the other hand, none of the Congressmen that voted not to certify Trump after the 2016 election had it mentioned in their lead.

[@tempejkl]

“Topics about history are well balanced” bro is the CIA

[@mafiahulk8196]

I'm an assiduous Wikipedia editor and their bias has been a pet peeve of mine for quite a while now. I'm glad more people are speaking up. The way they handle things like sources and wording in articles is absurd sometimes.

[@yegfreethinker]

Oh my God yes especially now the usage of the words whenever someone decides arbitrarily that he /she has changed their gender. See article of Demi Lovato. Just getting ridiculous. It's ridiculous. I'm gay and I object to this pronoun crap.

[@Fierysaint1]

You sir are a hero!

[@Masami_Salami]

The problem is simple: this is Reddit before Reddit existed. The moderators run Wikipedia to perpetuate their own beliefs and profit from a “free” product.

[@remyllebeau77]

From my point of view, why bother editing anything when any imbecile can come along later and undo everything you did? Why fight for saving the Library of Alexandria when the mob constantly controls which part of it to burn down and which part to save? Them demanding you expose yourself or they will publish your IP is also revolting.

[@billschlafly4107]

Try it...it's just like wiki without the bias.

[@loud_laughter]

It hurts my heart. Wikipedia used to be great. Are used to donate. Now it’s so obviously biased that I don’t even go there anymore. Yes, it hurts my heart.

[@SirBlackReeds]

It's not perfect, but Everipedia is a viable alternative.

[@veronikalynn5084]

This 😓

[@jakec9522]

Or...maybe you're the one who's bias and you just don't like truth that runs contrary to your preferred politics? Is that at all possible? Are you just wrong or misguided? Just putting that out there.

[@grob25]

@@jakec9522 this seems to be your standard reply. So, I take back what I said earlier. Not a good job. You fail

[@jakec9522]

@Negus Negast By "swing in one particular direction," you're ignoring whether or not that direction is indeed the truth. Like it or not, right leaning sources are far more reckless with the truth than most. It's why people who consume right-leaning media have been found to be even more misinformed than those who consume no media. That's not to say Wikipedia is perfect. No source is. But for the most part, it's far more accurate than the alternatives. And whining that it's no always fair to conservative leanings...well, maybe that's a sign that a lot of conservative ideology is...you know, wrong.

[@harryvanhoo7235]

With Wales at the helm, it will never change. It is well known to be unreliable and biased. Kinda ruins much of what it could be used for. Great video.

[@nicmart]

Wikipedia is pure democracy, and therefore rubbish.

[@JCG105]

Thanks for getting the word out to folks, John. I quit donating years ago because of this.

[@dgoddard]

I haven't visited Wikipedia in at least 10 years. But seeing that they consider Vox a reliable source of information is just hilarious. I wouldn't rely on Vox to tell me where the bathroom is.

[@halycon404]

Depends on the story. Vox has a large worldwide audience and their international coverage is usually BBC World reformatted to not be straight plagiarism with a few extra facts added in. It's oddly hard to cite BBC World. Most of it's radio shows and interviews with people on the ground all over the globe and their web page is horrible for archival purposes. The BBC is more interested in people being able to find the last week or month of radio interviews than three years ago. They haven't fully transitioned into the idea their mountains of radio interviews are worth keeping past the broadcast dates. So Vox and a lot of web news portals are grudgingly accepted as keepers of information BBC World can't be bothered with making easily available to the public by updating their server backends for public facing archive links that won't change because it's the third Tuesday of an odd numbered month or whatever else breaks their system. Anyway. Vox and such matter for that even if the US may not think about it much, BBC World is the single most trusted news source on the planet. By a huge margin. Not the BBC btw. BBC and BBC World are functionally two completely different entities. One laughed at, one trusted.

[@sirellyn]

Or who the bathroom is for.

[@bobwoods1302]

The bathroom? It's down the hall and to the left. You will see a door that says "Gentleman", just ignore that and walk right in.

[@sirellyn]

@@bobwoods1302 Yeah, it was Vox telling me, I'd definitely get a second opinion. Pretty much everything they've stated recently has turned out false.

[@idontexist1681]

@@sirellyn vox is as reliable as my grandpa with dementia

[@iamtheangiechrist1090]

I love the guy who said "Almost everything on that laptop was true." What do mean almost lol? It's his laptop. Everything on it is true. Unless these Tooks actually think someone planted fake stuff on it? I wouldn't put it passed them.🤦‍♀️

[@asandman354]

Maybe some of the stuff on the laptop turned out to be Parmesan. Lol!

[@RedroomStudios]

exactly... same logic of calling it fake earlier when we could clearly see it was Hunter Biden taking a video of himself alone in a room with a crack pipe and a prostitute!

[@AlphaCrucis]

I stopped donating years ago once I started noticing problems like these.

[@mwmdtexas4389]

I only use Wikipedia for entertainment information anymore after I discovered significant misleading and/or outright false information on several political entries.

[@freethebirds3578]

Anyone who isn't convinced of the bias should look into Joseph Farah's (editor in chief of WND) legal battle over his biography. It was filled with lies and slurs, and he had to sue to get them removed. He won, they were removed, and came back in a very short time.

[@cerebraldreams4738]

That's when you sue again, and say "I was already victorious on these allegations of slander/libel, and now they're doing it again. This time I want punitive damages and a court injunction."

[@wrongthinker843]

Sounds like an open and shut case of contempt of court.

[@cerebraldreams4738]

@@wrongthinker843 - Not if they didn't have an injunction. In any case, it'll be MUCH easier to argue for damages this time around.

[@donf3877]

@@cerebraldreams4738 Find out the net worth... and sue for three times that amount. That way, even IF it is reduced... it STILL bankrupts them.

[@nathanparker8555]

What is WND?

[@tooruoikawa8985]

It’s almost like all the teachers and librarians were right 15 years ago when they said no to Wiki as sources….

[@Uberragen21]

Exactly. In college, almost all of my professors explicitly said, "No Wiki will accepted as a source!" That was only a little more than a decade ago. Now all colleges heavily use Wiki as "reliable" sources. It's utter insanity.

[@TheKelsey]

@@Uberragen21 I've never seen that before

[@KeithCindyPanama]

History is being erased twisted and replaced

[@TheCarnivoreSoprano]

@@Uberragen21 yup!

[@teekay_1]

@@Uberragen21 Wikipedia is a good place to do a 10-minute education where you can then use the access you have in college to peer-reviewed work (which I miss). When I was getting my MS, I also would use MIT Journal and Harvard Business Review as sources, and those are acceptable as well.

[@a.s.raiyan2003-4]

I made a article for a band. Apparently I made it too promotional. So naturally instead of helping me fix it. The editors deleted the page and even erased the draft of that page on my PERSONAL page. So they clearly respect your personal space.

[@johnpenguinthe3rd13]

I had a similar experience. I would type stuff up, with tons of citations backing everything up, for various entertainment related things (like cartoons) and the so-called Wiki "editors" (who are really people who can never get a real editor job in real life due to their horrendous people skills and horrible editing skills, so they pretend to be an editor on Wikipedia) would erase everything for B.S reasons that made no sense. The whole point to being an editor is to HELP the writer, they aren't suppose to "Thanos Snap" everything the writer wrote. That's like someone building a castle out of Legos and someone else coming along and breaking the entire thing down instead of trying to add more to it or tweak it. Their editor skills are freaking horrible (which explains why they edit on Wikipedia and not for a real editing job).

[@a.s.raiyan2003-4]

@@johnpenguinthe3rd13 I feel your pain, dude. I once got a 18 month ban for "disruptive edits" I didn't even knew that editing and saving a page several times is a problem. No other site has a problem with that.

[@gimmelyod]

I did donate, but began to notice a trend where people & events of which I had specific inside knowledge - were being altered to imply falsehoods or directly make them. I decided to NEVER DONATE AGAIN when an organization that I created had it's page altered and when I tried to correct the changes by QUOTING FROM THE ORGANIZATION'S WEBSITE to make my points - Some stranger editing the article to misrepresent the organization managed to get my changes reversed & I was threatened with removal. So, I made one last set of changes and HASHed the page. Then, I placed a warning on the website of the organization that explained what the HASH was on the APPROVED WikiPedia page was and if that hash changed then the page was UNRELIABLE. Wikipedia is trash. Give it enough time and "Math will be racist", etc.

[@docgiggs]

I stopped donating to Wikipedia and using it a LONG time ago. I still get the emails though to donate again. I stopped around 2009 when I saw the direction of the bias at that point and where it was going. For the first few years it was great! Then I noticed it was slowly becoming very biased in any political or news article. By 2012 it was accelerating the bias at a ridiculous pace.

[@bigtechisbigbrother8690]

It's like revisionist history now. Throwing facts down the memory hole and just making things up.

[@snowps1]

I donated just once about 10 years ago, and I never donated again for the same reason.

[@combativeThinker]

I hope they go fucking broke. They better learn to code, hahahahaha!

[@CTSFanSam]

Sure wish there was a way to tell them why the donations from me are gone. I get their e-mails. A "reason for not donating this year" would be nice.

[@Kremithefrog1]

Same

[@Very_Angry_Citizen]

I used to donate to wikipedia. I stopped in 2016. They won't get a single penny or click from me ever again.

[@cobrellie]

I quit donating a couple of years ago … to much censorship in the political arena ..

[@Bentsi2002]

I use to donate as well, and after that I've been banned from editing due to one correction that I made, I realized that it's just another political tool, btw, no one told me why I got banned.

[@tempejkl]

CIA political tool

[@EnforcementDronEd209]

Wokeapedia that's what they should really call themselves.

[@1pcfred]

Encyclopedia Dramatica is already taken.

[@rbxless]

And Fox News should be Fake News.

[@SlowedAesthege]

@@1pcfredsorry biaspedia is better sounding 🤷‍♀️

[@billcox8870]

I trust Wikipedia for trivia. A good example is when certain public figures are born or who they are related to. I would never count on it as a reference source. There have been feminist editing parties of Wikipedia. That is just one example of why you should never rely on it when doing any paper for school work at any level.

[@cbxxb4841]

Would you stake your life on the reported birthday of a public figure in Wikipedia...? Trust but Verify!

[@turbo84gn]

Every class my kids have had in high school and college have made it very clear that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source.

[@newagain9964]

The only thing I like about Wikipedia is it’s confirmed biased bs. U may say that ppl treat it like it’s fact, then I say ppl treated encyclopedias like the words of god. As if those writers weren’t biased and worse!

[@jordanwardle11]

Wikipedia is like an encyclopaedia, YOU DONT USE IT AS THE SOURCE, rather you use it's sources. An encyclopaedia is just a summary of the information

[@zvipatent]

Also pretty good for technological info - so it CAN be helpful for school work.

[@itssnowcone]

The issue with Wikipedia is that it's an encyclopedia run by Reddit mods. What do I mean by that? Each article is controlled by a select few mods who can act like tyrants. They can fill a page with their biases, block other users from making edits, and prevent discussions on certain topics if they don't feel like making a case for their perspective. You can become a mod on Wikipedia by making consistent contributions to other pages and building your reputation. But the only people who have the time to do that are young people and losers. It's Reddit but an encyclopedia.

[@the_hanged_clown]

"edited by anyone" inherently will make the information unreliable. I think it's safe to say that the majority of people who specialize in any given field and may be an expert on the information therein, are _not the majority_ of people who have a need and/or desire to visit sites like wikipedia. an encyclopedia is a great source of _general_ information. it should _not_ be used if you want to have a nuanced understanding of a given subject.

[@dycedargselderbrother5353]

Yeah, Wikipedia is best to answer questions that have concrete answers, like dates or people's names. Even then it can be an unreliable crapshoot, like Taylor Lorenz's age for example.

[@tomgip]

I have long been a big donater, but like you, I stopped about six months ago. Sadly, I stopped because of the bias. I used to think Wikipedia was the greatest source of human knowledge. My fingers are crossed that it can some day return to a neutral, evidence based source of information, but until then, I too will be skeptical.

[@henlofren7321]

How did you not realize this before? I tried editing back in 2006 and I already understood the type of people I was dealing with back then. They were a problem even in supposedly agenda free subjects like math and physics.

[@generalawareness101]

I gave up a few years ago when I had the facts sitting next to me to make an edit and within a couple of minutes it was edited. I go back to re-edit it and it was edited again. This is why I am not a true Libertarian as the "Libertarian site" shows how that is just an unrealistic ideology in a very bad world as are most Libertarian ideas. In a perfect world they would be great.

[@barunto1]

Its not going to return. A new one will have to be built.

[@rattown99]

Maybe Elon will buy Wikipedia next!

[@shortyrok1]

Yes same. So sorry they are biased...

[@steampunk888]

Wikipedia has recently taken to replacing the word “man,” across the entire site, with “male person.”

[@macethorns1168]

That's why I laughed when that guy said it was a reliable source for science.

[@Gitn2it]

I still use the word mankind to refer to the human race and master bedroom to refer to the largest bedroom or the homeowner's suite. They should still be acceptable terms and not construed as sexist and/or racist.

[@bradrtorgersen_videos]

I've had my own Wiki page (as a science fiction author) get politically hockey-pucked quite a bit. If you are a public figure in *any* way, however niche it might be, and you come out of the closet as conservative . . . the progressive activists will make it their business to "mind" your page. Ergo, ensure that negatives are accentuated, while positives are diminished, or even removed outright as being, "Not pertinent to the subject in question." And because there isn't any body to which one can appeal, you're pretty much at the mercy of the "club" of Wikipedians who've elected themselves judges, jurors, and executioners of what's worth knowing. I've dipped my toe in that water (for some benign articles about local wildlife) and there is a definite learning curve, both in how Wikipedia is back-end coded, and also when it comes to sourcing. I think what annoys me most is how purely dependent Wikipedia is on everything being printed on its articles being linked (somehow, someway) to other internet pages, the veracity of which is anyone's guess. And again, if you are a public figure of any sort, and you're not an out-and-out progressive, the prog Wikipedians will make it their job to "take care of" what the world knows about you.

[@MajorSeventh]

"I think what annoys me most is how purely dependent Wikipedia is on everything being printed on its articles being linked (somehow, someway) to other internet pages, the veracity of which is anyone's guess." Yes, that's the crux of the matter. Opinion does not equal fact by virtue of hypertext.

[@zackhamilton8444]

And this is why progressives are a public enemy.

[@manuell3505]

Surprise: The "hunter laptop" has never existed, nor do any supposed files on it.

[@synchro505]

Nice to see John Stossel report on this even though many of us have already known how skewed Wikipedia has been over the years. Verifiable change is needed because people need to know what's really going on.

[@glasslinger]

Elon, WE NEED YOU! :)

[@JohnDoe-xf2ke]

Wikipedia isn't just biased, it's deliberately misleading. That's because the US government (and others, I'm sure) employs people to control Wikipedia and therefore control what people consider "true." What Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" philosophy means in practice is that its articles are controlled by the people most motivated by an agenda.

[@manictiger]

This war against rational discussion will lead to war. When the pen is no longer viable, it gets replaced by the sword.

[@leonrafe8513]

What type of change could help? It is still run by popular controll, so unless you could get alot more unbiased/right leaning people on there, you couldn't change much without harming the principles at the roots of the project. I guess media like this helps somewhat, if people are aware of the problem, they are better equipped to act accordingly.

[@bobjordan5231]

Just a couple of days ago I was reading about Mao and he was portrayed in a rather favorable light on Wikipedia. Good grief, as a student of history this didn't pass muster. Nice to see your vid John!

[@mr.s9783]

Yeah, they tend to mention the 65+ million people he butchered as an afterthought. They go light on Stalin too. Go to Hitler's page and he's described as evil personified. Meanwhile Stalin and Mao are "controversial figures."

[@ryanhall4745]

see what you think of its info on Taiwan.

[@ryanhall4745]

@Yao Wang guess I didn't get. I thought it was pro china. Taiwan is an independent country.

[@bobjordan5231]

@Yao Wang I hate communism because it's run by murderers and thugs - Mao, Lenin, Castro, Ho, and more. I've read up on all of them. No regard for human life, none at all. America is about freedom, though we have our share of Marxist who want to run the show here. Too bad we're well armed, which I'm sure you, like all Socialist Marxist Leftist Communist despise...

[@ryanhall4745]

@Yao Wang thats backwards. I would be pro Taiwan if I was going to fight china. I think Taiwan is free and should remain free. if I lived in Taiwan, yes I would fight. if china invades America, I will fight.

[@perochialjoe]

I remember when I last looked through Wikipedia anything that was a leftist point of view was allowed and protected from being revised as no matter how flawed it was there was always a convenient excuse for why it was just fine. Anything with a conservative viewpoint? "No reliable source", "conspiracy theories are not allowed", "the article doesn't have a liberal slant, conservatives are just wrong so it seems that way."

[@tempejkl]

what you dont realise is that the opinions of regular conservatives are actually socialist. Call me a liar, its true

[@GidarGaming]

An article was too biased. I cited a source that was still biased in the pre-existing "politically correct" favor, but was somewhat more neutral than the sources that already existed (i.e. a just slightly less biased to the left than other sources). Despite using the source to make the article more neutral, which is supposedly required according to Wikipedia's own rules, it was taken down within 24 hours because another editor wants to push their own political agenda...

[@GameFap]

Thank you for finally making an exposé on wikipedia, I think it does more harm than most social media due to it being presented as "neutral and reliable".

[@newagain9964]

True. The only thing I like about Wikipedia is it’s confirmed biased bs. U may say that ppl treat it like it’s fact, then I say ppl treated encyclopedias like the words of god. As if those writers weren’t biased and worse!

[@stevebabiak6997]

KZbin uses it as a “source of facts” on videos that might be controversial.

[@nonyadamnbusiness9887]

I donated and when they sent a thank you email, I told them that was all they'd get until they figured out how to restore neutrality to Wikipedia. The response was essentially, "Whatever Wikipedia does is neutral." That attitude is identical to the religious fundamentalist wack jobs I grew up around.

[@toddbellows5282]

Christophobe.

[@timsmith3377]

This is absolutely correct, and something I noticed years ago when I made some edits. I never have given to Wikipedia, and never will.

[@justinmoore3217]

It’s not just politics is literally any wiki page on topics that don’t have straight forward answers but multiple answers/views. You get a lot of pages that are all over the place as well as completely one sided.

[@cisium1184]

"But lately, he too noticed the bias." Lately? I can't remember a time Wiki _hasn't_ had biases. Its chief bias is the bias for the current over the historical, which is the _opposite_ of what a reliable source should be. And this chief bias leads into two other big biases: one being the undue attention it pays to a lot of relatively unimportant people and subjects; the second being the undue emphasis given to minor or even trivial factoids about subjects for the purpose of subtly inviting the reader to judge those subjects in a particular way. In all of these, and in other ways, Wiki is a lot more bias-ridden than the old encyclopedias were. And Wiki's biases are often insidious rather than overt, which presumably makes them harder (or at least requires more attention) for most people to filter through. I would go so far as to say that Wikipedia has proven the "open" model to be inadequate and unreliable even to openly biased "closed" sources. Bottom line, beyond being a bone-basic repository of information, it's just not very good.

[@mojewjewjew4420]

Who would have though that inviting all kind of unqualified,unverified and unreliable people to edit and post sources and decide policy for one of the most used sites in the world would lead to biased articles,polarization and so many other problems that can't be understood at first glance! Its not like all the libertarians/centrists/neutrals were persecuted up until now! Like Snowden,like how they attack Musk,etc.

[@tinyknott]

I think what happened to make many say that "it has become biased" was that the culture war came to the forefront, and bled into all kinds of topics. It especially got bad after gamergate, as they realized that if they just published a ton, and discredited their opponents, they could write history. Hard facts were discredited while discredited allegations and accusations were published as if fact. And I think they still are. The bias was always present, but it was a calm disagreement which they usually won, not a strategy implemented with brutal efficiency and psychopathic disregard for truth. The irony is that Wikipedia shows why libertarianism can't work. It does not have the necessary means to resist bad actors.

[@mojewjewjew4420]

@@tinyknott Liberallism is just like communism, good in theory, bad in reality.

[@fennecbesixdouze1794]

Absolutely. Real encyclopedias would hire experts in each subject area to write and vet the articles. Because there is no one class that can arbitrate truth: in different fields of study, standards of evidence and reasoning vary. In some areas like tech, recent is preferred over historical, but in areas like medicine or public policy or law, historical references which have stood the test of time are preferred to recent fads. From the very beginning, Wikipedia started with this totalizing libertarian/silicon valley philosophy that suggests that whatever philosophy works in silicon valley works for everything. Wikipedia was garbage even a decade ago.

[@mojewjewjew4420]

@@fennecbesixdouze1794 its not really a sillicon valley philosophy as much as it is a western garbage philosophy that has been so for decades to centuries.

[@dragonrider9051]

Well into my 40's now and hearing your investigative journalism is still just as intriguing.

[@mouwersor]

The most important issue is how biased a lot of articles are. Leftist-progressive ideology has the upper hand by far, but a lot of state-propagandist try their hardest to spin their narratives as well

[@lisamona6208]

I guess my teachers were right when they said wiki was unreliable for information…guess it’s why it’s always important to look at other sources than just wiki

[@Shade0fwhite]

Unfortunately it is not just politics, it also cannot be trusted with science that might have debatable outcomes or viewpoints. This includes political and historical.

[@jackalenterprisesofohio]

Yeah, just look at the monosoidum glutamate page.......

[@vrclckd-zz3pv]

@@jackalenterprisesofohio I looked that up but at a glance I can't see what's wrong with it. What exactly is the issue? I'm probably not looking hard enough but I don't want to read an entire Wikipedia page on salt haha.

[@jackalenterprisesofohio]

@@vrclckd-zz3pv it's at the very bottom.

[@materialknight]

Also, for math and computer science, is useless, except for the people that already know, and thereby do not need to read the article.

[@shazam6274]

Yeah, Wikipedia is crap. Its not just the politics, but also technical subjects such as engineering. Sometimes there is a political flavor added to these technical subjects, but more often the facts are at best incomplete, or just plain wrong. I'm an electrical engineer and over a decade ago would be told something at work which was sourced at Wikipedia, and wrong. I tried to be a good guy and wrote to correct the article, supplying solid reference materials, but nothing was ever corrected. If anyone references some "facts" about anything found on Wiki, I tell them to go find a better source before I even listen to them. Wikipedia is OK to find a celebrity's birthday, maybe, but for just about anything else, it is misleading at best, critically incomplete, or just plain wrong.

[@zvipatent]

Sorry to hear about the electrical engineering mis-info. I'm a Chem Engr/Material Sci guy and I've been pleased with the info. I don't like their leftist leaning though.

[@shazam6274]

@@zvipatent I found that the conductivity and temp coefficient of copper was wrong because it did not account for the composition of it, and the thermal properties of various Aluminum Allows were also wrong. FYI copper on a PCB is not the same as an ingot or a pipe.

[@zvipatent]

@@shazam6274 Nice of u to explain. I coincidentally have a degree in Material Science so know that the specific compositions of alloys effects conductivity and heat transfer coefficient (and thermal expansion, in case that's what u meant by temp coeff). Wish u the best !

[@BrianRocksNow]

I had a friend in high school (2008/2009ish) who changed Neil Armstrong's name to Chief McSkeeter on a whim. Seeing the change in real time inspired him to make a new record of events. Instead of landing on the moon, Neil was "bringing the boys" to "run a space train on your mom." It stayed like that for about a week. I never took that site seriously after that.

[@kameronpan2939]

Lmao that is actually hilarious what a legend

[@DJPatesBlog]

I was skeptical of even my lecturer's recommendation of Wikipedia back in my college years and I sure am still skeptical about its political positioning and influence now. Thanks for putting this out there, John.

[@susanblake7687]

I still can't get over the fact that information can easily be altered or removed and false facts may be continuously added back.

[@bondojoe8161]

I'm glad someone brought this up It's become so Liberal, that I don't go to it for anything anymore. When it was introduced, I DID donate. Not now. Not until it is on a level playing field.

[@remyllebeau77]

Don't hold your breath for that to happen. Not unless Elon also wants to buy it and make major changes. Better off destroying every institution that leftists have infiltrated and building something better and much more resilient to their evil.

[@bondojoe8161]

@@remyllebeau77 ... Either way works for me. There's a lot of rich guys [and girls] out there. Maybe one of them is another Musk.

[@ge2719]

now the only use wikipedia has is "i wonder what nonsense the left believes about x..... i'll go check wiki.... oh thats what they believe. oh so that why this nut job is telling me a bunch of nonsense..." it gives you a reference for how brainwashed people are. you know what selective information they have been allowed to read and now you know why they dont know what they are talking about.

[@mbdg6810]

Its not liberal. Left is now distinguished from that.

[@bondojoe8161]

@@mbdg6810 In what way?

[@DracoSafarius]

Didn't know how bad it actually was on there. Haven't ever really participated in editing since I first made my account back in high school almost a decade ago, but it's pretty bad. Original sources of stuff get ignored in favor of opinion-based sources, editors and admins alike pretend they can't see things disproving points, admins run on a hive mentality of power tripping (insofar as I've seen, at least), guidelines/rules for the site get outright ignored if an admin doesn't agree with your edit or cited source etc. Kind of baffled it went from something moderately acceptable to just a platform of inflating some sad egos and pushing agendas.

[@Moral_Imperative]

It is really not that bad at all. I use Wikipedia all the time when looking up people or history that I am not totally familiar with.

[@Moral_Imperative]

By the way, in case you are totally clueless, this video is an attack not just on Wikipedia but on the true political left -- who are the real truth-tellers of the world. What John Stossel calls the left is actually the liberal political establishment (which is not liberal at all but more like a moderate neoliberal conservatism) -- which is a part of the hegemonic establishment that John Stossel and ABC NEWS and other corporate media and CIA backed news outlets online belong to. The knowledge and views of the true left are simply not seen on television or told my corporate mainstream hacks like John Stossel or by some dubious outlets on KZbin that have been infiltrated by the CIA. What is really bad, and has been for a very long time, is for Americans to get their news from is the corporate owned major news outlets that pose themselves as independent but who in fact represent and reflect a very narrow range of the political spectrum. This is why most people never heard of Noam Chomsky, or Chris Hedges, or Edward Said, or Norman Finkelstein. If you don't want to learn about how things really work, stick with John Stossel and the corporate news media. Otherwise, check out public playlists Human Understanding or Anti-Establishment Education @rational-public-discourse.

[@DracoSafarius]

@@Moral_Imperative Varies pretty heavily. You'll get fantastically written and sourced articles that are actively maintained by either historians or people with an interest in history (or the topic of the article), but on the flip side you get just utter disaster that violate rules left and right but have enough people pushing it that it gets left up.

[@Suq3rst4r]

Thank you! This has finally confirmed a suspicion I've had for years.

[@ChristopherRyans]

John Stossel is a legend and American Hero for many of us.

[@pallidbustofpallas4679]

He is for me!

[@pallidbustofpallas4679]

He is for me!

[@malgosiak790]

Agreed

[@jaysuneakle]

Absolutely!

[@stevebabiak6997]

If you put that in his Wikipedia page, it might not last long :(

[@travisjazzbo3490]

I used to donate to them until I became aware of this BS

[@travisjazzbo3490]

@DEZZNUTZ 1001 They aren't a place for FACTS and TRUTH but what THEY decide are FACTS and TRUTH. If you are looking for something even remotely about history or politics on there, it is not to be relied upon at all

[@FuckYoutubeCensorship]

This entire website needs to be removed from the internet.

[@vomeister]

This is why I won't donate 1 cent to Wikipedia when they nag me to donate so they can stay independent.

[@walterbyrd8380]

I stopped donating to Wikipedia years ago. There was bias was far too extreme, and brazen.

[@gardengate1339]

Thanks for bringing this to light. I have always known Wikipedia is biased.

[@DragNetJoe]

I've tried to edit Wikipedia articles of which I had first hand knowledge and it's really hard to do if you are not a Wiki-insider, have an established rep, know people, and know the right techniques. I gave up after a couple tries when my edits got rejected. Wikipedia bias is people bias. People who know the drill and know editors get their changes in.

[@handles_are_fucking_stupid]

Great video, we should learn from this, and perhaps start a website that focuses on these topics but has a different method of creating and editing those articles

[@imbadwrench]

My dad spent about 3 months trying to get an edit of Wikipedia about his highschool that happened to have been used in one episode of an old tv show. his opponent was using information from a screenshot from the credits of the original show and a address in a modern phone book. My dad had his own yearbook, 2 pictures of his car in front of the building and the fact that he was actually in the background in one of the tv show scenes. The person in California won and dad gave up.

[@beyondobscure]

Can we get a source? I mean, this is some stupid shit and I'd hate not having any evidence besides anecdotal stuff from a KZbin comment.

[@imbadwrench]

NOT REALLY. route66 tv show, cleveland ohio 1961. the wiki page is blank now. not sure why, you used to be able to look at the edit history.

[@beyondobscure]

@@imbadwrench Oh, thanks!

[@imbadwrench]

Dad went tot he school where one of the scenes was filmed. they moved the school to a new location a few miles away much later. the wiki used the new address and dad could not get them to leave it changed. even though he could prove it was wrong.

[@beyondobscure]

@@imbadwrench Were there multiple television series by the name of Route 66? Looking at the edit history right now and at no point in time was the page blank, and the Talk page has nothing on it.

[@Maria_Erias]

The turning point for me on Wikipedia was when they were going to remove the page about genocides under Communist regimes. *Totally not pushing an agenda at all, are you Wikipedia?*

[@vrclckd-zz3pv]

Do you have more information on this? I haven't heard about it but it sounds concerning. Like that time Facebook helped cover up war crimes in Africa.

[@franpham9455]

@@vrclckd-zz3pv months ago Wikipedia flagged the page for deletion saying that it full of false information (ppl claimed that the sources were from white supremacists (with no evidence ofc)). Now the page says “the neutrality is disputed”. I just looked into the edit history and it’s a minefield.

[@rob679]

It's still there, they reverted the deletion but it has notion of 'neutrality of the article is disputed'. You can read a lot of discussion in the Talk page of the article.

[@nateisawesome766]

what genocides lmao

[@franpham9455]

@@nateisawesome766 exactly

[@glazedshades4692]

Thank you for your hard work, John! It's nice to have some proper journalism these days!

[@gaamesso8002]

I have noticed something on Wikipedia (specifically English Wikipedia), i've noticed that the people writing these articles keep switching measurements and dialects multiple times in the same article.

[@hk3967]

I am just glad that Elon Musk bought twitter. It gives me hope for freedom of speech!!! Atleast now us conservatives will have a voice 😊

[@bigtechisbigbrother8690]

Maybe. It's not over, and the powers that be will do anything they can to squash free speech.

[@rbxless]

That sounds like the end of freedom of speech. What if someone wants to criticise him?

[@hk3967]

@@rbxless he said that they can

[@hk3967]

@@rbxless I don't get your liberal logic

[@rbxless]

@@hk3967 "he said, he said...!" You can't trust a man with so much power over speech and so many dark secrets to hide (how he treated his workers during pandemic, how SpaceX was created to let the rich survive the catastrophe...) to let people damage his PR or critizise the capitalist system.

[@grob25]

I called them out in 2019 when they asked for a donation. Some intern gave a half hearted try to deny that they are biased. I have not contributed since and I rarely use the site anymore.

[@SergejVolkov17]

Good. The more right wing people leave, the more leftist wiki becomes.

[@grob25]

@@SergejVolkov17 that is not a hill I am willing to die on. They had a great idea going there. But, like all things that the left infects, it is now ruined.

[@jakec9522]

Or...maybe you were the one who was bias and just didn't like that the truth didn't align with your politics?

[@grob25]

@@jakec9522 yup. You got me there. Good job.

[@kennethanderson3924]

When I was in college, Wikipedia wasn’t an acceptable source. I bet it is now for political assignments.

[@LarsLarsen77]

It was always an acceptable source, they just said that because wikipedia makes research way too easy.

[@mayorb3366]

When I was in college, my research papers started a visit to the card catalog. Students who were good typists would make money typing up people's reports/research papers. By today's standards I have no idea how we got anything done back then.

[@mikethepenguin2949]

@@LarsLarsen77 Lmao..... no, its really not. Have you ever tried to source anything from a wiki page? its a dead link from unreliable websites, made around the time Obama took office. Your Prof probably just didn't give a shit, because your just an undergrad, and he didn't feel like reporting you for plagiarism. Yes, not citing sources correctly or just in bad faith is plagiarism and academic dishonesty.

[@tempejkl]

@@LarsLarsen77It is not an acceptable source. However, when talking to capitalists (right wing liberals and conservatives) then its fine

[@gatedancer17]

I got redirected to that 'Biden - Ukraine conspiracy theory' article once when I was looking to see what was said about the laptop. Made my blood boil. I already had seen ridiculous bias in articles about politics or Israel, but that Hunter one was beyond ridiculous.

[@gatedancer17]

@Takemichi H Nothing. The bias was pro Zionist. That was the problem. You should already know that.

[@theflipper404]

Pro-Zionism is almost always a right leaning stand point. Leftists hate Israel lol. Especially the woke cult. University students hate Israel and protest it constantly. Instead the woke cult usually support palestine and say Israel is an evil apartheid state that copies western imperialism and colonialism. It’s very easy to find videos, articles, and social media posts that critique Israel lol. I see it all the time among my peers. I legit only ever see pro-Israel shit from people like Ben Shapiro (no surprise there lol), Tucker Carlson, and Steven Crowder to name a few. Now if we are talking alt-right, well, that’s a different story lol. But I’m just being honest with you, being pro-Israel is a right leaning stand point. I never think of a leftist when I hear “pro-Israel”, I almost always think of a conservative evangelical Christian.

[@finnholt4406]

Thanks for everything you do John!

[@bamaraiderable]

I'm glad more people are catching on. I believe in Intelligent Design, and Wikipedia is merciless in allowing any fair content on the movement or its scholars. A German Darwinian paleontologist who is considered the world's leading expert on fossilized dragon flies changed his mind about ID and joined our side. Wiki dropped him soon after with the excuse that he wasn't important enough to have on their pages. He was important enough when he was on the correct side ideologically, however. His name is Gunter Bechly. Wiki a few seconds ago still says, "The page "Günter Bechley" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered."

[@freightliner_86]

I don't know what you think about Kent Hovind, but reading the entry on him years ago was, from my memory, the first time I realised the Wikipedia's bias. It was framed as an attack on his character rather than addressing any of his points.

[@bamaraiderable]

@@freightliner_86 I'm not a young earth person myself, but I support free inquiry and facts should be debated ahead of personalities. Science has often been advanced by people who were not considered mainstream and who were not working within the framework of what was considered proper scientific methodology.

[@SpiritLife]

@@bamaraiderable I respect that. As to the original comment, I too see scientific evidence for ID. And I know of any many secular people who believe in it. They might not attribute it to God, but the evidence is strong that it's there

[@_APG_]

After checking deep into this topic he was simply inserting his god into evolutionary jumps and natural mutations rather than explain their existence(which we already have a ton of evidence for.) He also belongs to a lot of websites/groups that try to insert god into science which is pretty sketchy. I don't advocate for Wikipedia to remove or silence him, but his work is certainly biased and innaccurate regardless of the authority it may feel he holds. At worst you could say he's working with those sites to try and insert god into science. On a side note all gods have to be inserted somewhere since we can never obtain actual hard evidence of their existence like we can do with anything else that is quantifiable or that does exist.

[@EnlightenedByKnowledge]

@@SpiritLife I'm curious. What evidence did you find for ID? Because from what I've researched over the years, there isn't any evidence for it.

[@joespice785]

I knew Wikipedia was biased, but this goes beyond what I thought it was!

[@Pexbd]

I dont think someone with this profile image has an ability to fairly judge on what is bias lol🤣🤣🤣

[@SlowedAesthege]

@@Pexbdevery human being at least has some bias. But coming from wikipedia I’m not surprised

[@slvrshore5300]

@@Pexbd 🤡

[@slvrshore5300]

@@Pexbd cope fascist

[@Proud_Sex_Dungeon_Owner]

It's been a while since I was recommended a Stossel video.

[@CS-cd8ox]

Great reporting as always, I always see them asking for donations and I would have considered doing so with how much I use the site, now I will not be donating until this issue can hopefully be resolved

[@bvoyelr]

The same thing happened to me. I donated to them, then it seems like less than a year later I learned how biased they were. Granted, it's still a valuable resource and I already knew not to peruse them for even mildly contentious material, but I still don't like donating to things infected with leftism as a matter of principle.

[@vrclckd-zz3pv]

Tbh even without the left bias you shouldn't be donating to Wikipedia anyway. I can't remember all the details so I won't go too much into it in case I spread misinformation but basically they have way more than enough money right now from previous donation drives and their high level staff have very generous salaries which keep increasing. There have been a lot of news articles about it over the years if you want to look more in to it.

[@jackson5116]

no, it's not a valuable resource, only 100% factual articles are, and they're not even close to 50% factual, because they refuse to give the other side.

[@MarcillaSmith]

When the example of "left-leaning bias" is covering up for _Joe Biden,_ sounds like biased coverage of the bias. I'm anti-marxist, but I still know that no marxist worth their salt would lift a finger for such a puppet of Wall Street any more than a true moral conservative would vote for the previous guy and his "grab them by the... " morality. EDIT: used the wrong word.

[@Ninjaeule97]

Using Wikipedia as a primary source is always a dangerous game. Remember everyone can edit. If you use Wikipedia always check the sources they give. Sucks when they no longer exist.

[@matthewpenn407]

Thanks John, did not know about this one.

[@IdgaradLyracant]

Wikipedia: Brought to you by the Ministry of Truth.

[@mehtacotute]

Step 1: Claim to be unbiased Step 2: Gain market share by being unbiased Step 3: Become the go-to Step 4: Destroy all competition Step 5: Create massive barriers for entry Step 6: Hide bias Step 7: Repeat Step 1-6 until nothing isn't Left

[@nodnoc9627]

I’m definitely pretty moderate and always considered myself fairly liberal but the way the left has been systematically destroying what made our country great and deciding what is true or false has been making me reconsider things

[@computercomputer8922]

Classic "Embrace, extend, extinguish"

[@e.n.strowd1949]

@@nodnoc9627 sure you have

[@artimuos903]

The leftists took the place of editors. It was and always their plan in long term, first become good editors and after 5 10 years when they're highly qualified push your Propaganda. Teachers in colleges do that.

[@Bisquick]

Congratulations, you've identified why capitalism is dogshit, actually. _"The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."_ - some guy, a bit optimistic at the end we wouldn't just choose individual delusion while the planet literally burns around us...

[@rmartin7558]

Unfortunately I do visit Wikipedia occasionally because they are the only game in town. But they haven't and won't get a dime from me when they beg for a donation.

[@vtramell3196]

The quickest way to lose a debate on social, political or military issues is to reference Wkipedia". I have lost count of how many debates I have dominated because the opposition relied on that faux information site.

[@nehorlavazapalka]

100% WRONG. They're targeting 14yos and they're winning big time!

[@dave7830]

I came to the conclusion years ago - any "facts" posted on Wikipedia need to be confirmed by several other sources. To many times "facts" were the authors only beliefs.

[@skid902]

That's it for me too...no more donations! Keep up the great work John.

[@jmtrad1906]

If something have a moderation, there will be a bias. If something don't have a moderation, will turn into a battleground. There is no win. Just stay informed on what kind of people "run" the place.

[@Laszlo34]

Sad and scary. :( Thanks for the videos and all you do!