Wikipedia's Not as Biased as You Might Think, Say Harvard Researchers (qz.com) 171
An anonymous reader shares a report on Quartz:In a sea of biased content, Wikipedia is one of the few online outlets that strives for neutrality. After 15 years in operation, it's starting to see results. Researchers at Harvard Business School evaluated almost 4,000 articles in Wikipedia's online database against the same entries in Encyclopedia Brittanica to compare their biases. They focused on English-language articles about US politics, especially controversial topics, that appeared in both outlets in 2012. In its initial years, Wikipedia's crowdsourced articles were tinted very blue, slanting more toward Democratic views and displayed greater bias than Britannica. However, with more revisions and more moderators volunteering on the platform, the bias wore away. In fact, the upper quartile of the Wikipedia's sample had enough revisions that there was no longer any difference in slant and bias from its offline counterpart. More surprisingly, the authors found that the 2.8 million registered volunteer editors who were reviewing the articles also became less biased over time.
Top quartile, you say? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
So they've managed to validate that just 1 out of 4 articles is free of bias. And the other 3?
You're right. The article on semigroups, particularly the bit about monoids has a distinctly liberal bias.
Might not be neutral but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I will not contribute to Wikipedia anymore. I've had edits that I could provide support for undone by some self-important busybody whose only credentials were the ones they defined when they signed up for an account on Wikipedia. Forget that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is, in fact, a terrible fact about Wikipedia. It's also the only way to actually achieve neutrality: a very strong bias against new people, since they're usually just there to slant an article towards their preferred point of view.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Experienced editors like former Wikipedia admin Ryulong are among the most guilty of introducing bias and incorrect information into articles. The worst part is that even in the face of these actions, it was ridiculously difficult to have an individual like this removed. The old hands can be just as damaging to an article.
BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (Score:5, Informative)
Did you ask the editor who reverted that change to explain the reversion [wikipedia.org]? If you ask, wait a week [wikipedia.org], and try the edit again, the burden falls on the reverting user to explain why the edit should not stick.
Re:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (Score:4, Interesting)
"Not properly sourced."
But you provided all the links to sources.
"No original research."
But it's not my own research. Look at the sources I provided.
"Not noteworthy."
What? This is a hugely significant!
Page has been locked, your IP has been banned from editing.
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Please click on Jimmy Wales's ugly face to donate.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not properly sourced." But you provided all the links to sources.
"No original research." But it's not my own research. Look at the sources I provided.
"Not noteworthy." What? This is a hugely significant!
Page has been locked, your IP has been banned from editing.
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Please click on Jimmy Wales's ugly face to donate.
Cite? C'mon, should be easy; it's all there in the history of the article and the talk page.
Of course, you won't respond to this. People who make these sorts of claims never do, strangely enough. I wonder why that would be...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1 month 'term limit' on 'owning' an article and only being allowed to own any article once would be a good start
Re: (Score:3)
Even the article you link admits that the policy is not working (see discussion of 'tag teams').
Until people that participate in 'tag teams' are banned from all editing this shit will continue.
Re: (Score:2)
Any non technical subject on wikipedia. Especially the political ones.
Re: (Score:3)
The "king of the hill" model you describe has built an AMAZING encyclopedia... a fact that you ignore and shows you are willing to throw the baby away with the bath water.
Huh? At no point did I see GP saying that Wikipedia wasn't a significant accomplishment. He was pointing out a flaw. Are people not allowed to criticize something without bowing before it first and acknowledging how "great and mighty" it is?
And please cite where GP said we should throw Wikipedia away. He said it has some problems, and he's not willing to waste his time editing because of those problems. I don't see anything where GP suggested that we get rid of Wikipedia -- he's noting something's wr
Re: (Score:3)
The article in-question that was the straw breaking the camel's back was about a particular form of ballroom dance. The article did not actually describe how the dance was performed. Didn't mention time signature or beats per minute, didn't describe the basics of the footwork (the "box step" that is common to a dozen dances of European heritage) or anything about the grip or how lead-follow works.
When I remember back to reading the encyclopedia as a child, was that the artic
Filter bubble effect (Score:3)
Which shows what happens when people get information from outside their comfortable filter bubble ... they tend to take on less extreme views.
.
Which is one of the reasons why some of the more extreme news sites often say something to the effect, ~you don't have to go anywhere else, we tell you all the news you need to know~
Re: (Score:2)
...Which shows what happens when people get information from outside their comfortable filter bubble ... they tend to take on less extreme views.
This explains why they insist on various "free spaces" at colleges, to keep the facts out and their extreme views in.
Re: (Score:2)
So Britannica is more republican (Score:1)
Does it makes it less biased? Should the English Wikipedia be perfectly balanced between US Democrats and Republicans? Why?
Especially since Republicans are known to be biased against science and facts (creationism, climate denial), it sounds like a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Your position is poor. It's like saying that since Democrats (some democrats) believe in homeopathy and gaia that Democrats are anti-science and anti-facts.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't really care about some democrats and some republicans in the general population. A party can't be accountable for every single supporter. But some high profile republicans, including some elected officials, reject climate science and/or are creationists.
Are there Democratic elected officials who reject evolution? Like it or not, it's much more a republican thing.
Concerning homeopathy, do they vote laws against science-based medicine and favoring homeopathy? If not I don't really care if they waste t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really care about some democrats and some republicans
Thats great!
But some high profile republicans...
uhhh... did you read what you wrote?
What a fucking clown you are.
Re: (Score:2)
I do make a distinction between elected officials (and even candidates for important offices such as Ben Carson) and unknown supporters/voters.
I don't see this as a contradiction.
But even if you take the whole republican supporters, they are more likely to deny climate change and evolution than democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
But even if you take the whole republican supporters, they are more likely to deny climate change and evolution than democrats.
and democrats are more likely anti-vax, pro-homeopathy, and pro-dehumanization.
All you are doing is trying to pretend to be open minded while actually being obviously a partisan fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Trump himself is anti-vax. And he is not only not vaccinating his children (personal choice). He is spreading anti-vax bullshit publicly hoping people will follow him.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump himself is anti-vax. And he is not only not vaccinating his children (personal choice). He is spreading anti-vax bullshit publicly hoping people will follow him.
He learned it by watching Robert Kennedy Junior.
Now you are denying that democrats are far more likely to be anti-vax (and anti-fluoride.)
You are proving the point about democrat denialism.
Re: (Score:2)
No I am not, I was just asking for a reference. I don't live in the US. Maybe it is obvious to you but not to me. Who are the elected/running democrats against vaccination? You'll have to find a lot to match Trump (being the single most important republican).
As for Robert Kennedy Jr, according to his own web site he claims to be pro-vaccine: http://www.robertfkennedyjr.co... [robertfkennedyjr.com]
Absolute horseshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't biased is someone who has never tried to contribute to Wikipedia.
Bias of people versus bias of organization (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't biased is someone who has never tried to contribute to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia as an organization and as a website generally isn't biased on most topics. Kind of hard to have a bias about some random regurgitation of a technical fact like a chemical or math equation. Some of the people who contribute to Wikipedia very much are biased because most people carry assorted biases with them. But these biases generally don't seem to lean coherently towards one political persuasion or another across Wikipedia but rather are generally confined to specific hot button topics. The hope is that the various biases of the contributors will mostly balance out and the objective facts will remain. This doesn't always happen but it seems to happen often enough that one can say it usually works and not look stupid saying so.
What is amusing/depressing is that some people reflexively claim that any facts that don't match their pre-existing world view must be biased.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not saying much. In fact, this says so little as to be meaningless — the overwhelming majority of topics are non-controversial at all.
But, if you look at the history of Margaret Sanger's page [wikipedia.org], for example, the number of times "Reverting" and "Undoing" are mentioned is rather high...
Conservapedia is much better (Score:1)
I get all my information from Conservapedia - totally free of liberal lies and bias.
Vote Trump!
By the logic of this research (Score:1)
Voltaire's Opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So its only half as biased as I might think ? (Score:1)
purple blind (Score:2)
Just go to the Bruce Jenner pg (Score:1)
And you will get a taste of the online moderation going on @ Wikipedia.
Wiki wars (Score:3)
Real drama is in the talk pages. Check ones like how dangerous pit bulls and whether its owners vs breeds, gamergate, mens rights, any politician, politics, political view, etc.
Basically anything with a point of view, will slant to the left, that's because more editors are of leftish ideology, and wikipedia staff are mostly leftist.
The article itself says it has a slight leaning left, what is "slight" in numbers, 10%, 20%?
Re: (Score:2)
wouldn't a slant be measured in degrees? like 45 degree angle?
Re: (Score:2)
When talking about a sloping surface, it's common to talk about a grade, expressed, in percent: a 10% grade, a 20% grade, and so on. This is of course, convertable into a angle measured in degrees or radians.
Re: (Score:2)
But a grade has no sign, there is no left or right slant.
Re: (Score:2)
A 90 degree angle would be a veritcal wall, and would be an infinite slope, as slope is calculated as "rise over run", and with a verticle wall, the run is 0.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's because Gamergaters and MRAs are all completely abhorrent pieces of shit?
these guys at harvard are mentally ill (Score:1)
The bias is not democratic versus republican. Its mostly government and corporation versus the people. Information is censored and biased for the government and corporations on Wikipedia and features mostly propoganda. Information on government crimes and conspiracy is almost always edited out and removed. The articles are pro industry and pro military. Classified information is gone in favor of censored white washed versions. Harvard one of the largest and most secretive military industrial complex facilit
Re: (Score:2)
This is a more recent event. As a volunteer publication, someone has to donate their free time to do this.
Why don't you start?
Re: (Score:2)
Yet within seconds of the first unconfirmed report of a celebrity being dead Wikipedia is updated by a horde of ravenous "volunteers".
Wikipedia is awful for many reasons, but the worst is the entrenched editors with moderator powers that police certain pages. The reason why more people don't volunteer to update shit is because the majority of the time some aspie comes along and reverts the updates if they don't like the facts. If you try to find out why on the "talk" page, you'll see that there's one clow
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
From the linked page:
Re: (Score:2)
Um so?
From literally the first line of the article:
And from the infobox:
So, "Bradley Manning" and "Chelsea Manning" link to the same page because, er, it's the same person. OMG EVERYBODY PANIC SJW ALERT!!!
Re: Show me the Wikipedia entry for "Bradley Manni (Score:2)
You mean like when they use Muhammad Ali instead of Cassius Clay? SJWs did that?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like when they use Muhammad Ali instead of Cassius Clay? SJWs did that?
They also use Michelle Obama rather than Michelle Robinson.
Re: (Score:2)
9
Commander, Gunner, driver, and 6 infantry
Re: (Score:2)
If anything "insists" it must be Chelsea, it would be the legal process which has been undertaken and granted by the court to legally change said indivudual's name. Though simple common courtesy should be reason enough.
Maybe you should have a go at Bono, Lady Gaga, and Pope Francis for having the audacity to run around using a name other than that given to them by their parents - and they haven't even bothered to make it legal!
Re: (Score:1)
You mean HIS legal name. Just because he's fucked in the head doesn't change his biological gender.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean HIS legal name. Just because he's fucked in the head doesn't change his biological gender.
Nope, the OP means "HER" real name not "HIS", because, frankly only people with wayyy to much time on their hands and very, very fragile feelings care about the details of someone's biological gender.
There are plenty of cases IME where post-op you really can't tell without getting really rather intimate with the person. And if you didn't know them before, and can't tell after, how on earth would you even know
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, trannies weird me out and shit, and I don't jive with changing the gender pronoun because my brain breaks; on the other hand, it breaks slightly-less using the biologically-correct gender pronoun, because something weird is going on here.
The simple solution to this is I stay the fuck away from those people.
Honestly, you don't like someone? Are they doing anything harmful? No? Then go hang out with someone else. You don't need to start a crusade against everyone who makes you uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
Transvestites and transsexuals are not the same thing and by lumping them together it makes it sound very much like you don't know what you're talking about, especially because I can't tell what you're talking about.
I just avoid the whole situation, because that's what grown-ups do when they encounter something they don't quite jive with.
The thing grown-ups do is have a good, long, hard think about it and learn to deal. If someone presenting entirely as female gives you pronoun problems because you believe
Re: (Score:2)
Transvestites are ALSO unnerving, for other reasons--to the same effect: I let them do their thing and stay away from all that.
As for what I believe about someone or not, you seem to be overestimating how easily a man can convert themselves into a woman, or vice-versa. The number of tells span adjustable major development that occurred early in life (such as larynx shape and size--hormone therapy alters this, but doesn't rebuild it from scratch), integral physical characteristics (such as the shape of t
Re: (Score:2)
What you are feeling is a symptom of the 'Uncanny valley'. It's perfectly normal.
Re: (Score:2)
As for what I believe about someone or not, you seem to be overestimating how easily a man can convert themselves into a woman, or vice-versa.
Nope. Having actually known a couple of people who have made the transition, one very very well, one not so well, I claim you are full of crap.
You're also assuming that every individual has the dimorphism taken all the way to 11 before making the switch.
such as larynx shape and size-
Not all men have large and prominent larynxes.
such as the shape of the pelvis and the
Re: (Score:2)
All men do not have a giant, basso larynx, no. They all have a larynx that projects a male voice, even if it's a higher-tone male voice. Male voices have a lower and higher register, with the natural tone in the lower register; female voices have a more-dynamic higher register with greater range.
Women have a greater lumbar curve and an anterior-tilted pelvis, rather than a posterior-tilted pelvis as men. This doesn't just make them walk with an exaggerated hip-swing; it allows them greater and smoothe
Re: (Score:1)
Bah! Legal names! What politically correct drivel is this?! HIS JESUS NAME IS BRADLEY! HIS JESUS NAME IS BRADLEY! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
See, here's problem. According to the most accurate and unbiased source on ALL the internets [conservapedia.com], a sauce that may even be a big truck!:
Most of Wikipedia's articles can be edited publicly by both registered and anonymous editors, mostly consisting of teenagers and the unemployed. As such, it tends to project a liberal--and, in some cases, even socialist, Communist, and Nazi-sympathising--worldview, which is totally at odds with conservative reality and rationality.
See! Only a TEENAGE NAZI would think a legal name fucking matters for ANYTHING! I'll bet you fucking spell sympathising with a Z you naZi! AAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Trump 2016~! IT's all rigged~! Reality is unknowable~! You can't argue ag
re Wikipedia (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal wennies think biased liberal sources are not actually biased. Pay $10 to watch what you want to hear
Right you are. Stick to Conservapedia [conservapedia.com] instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's not necessarily an inaccurate assumption.
Bias is hard to examine because it's prone to the examiner's bias. Further, there's a "fair and balanced" fallacy in which you give equal-weight to each side--for example, you might try to remain "fair" by evaluating that 1,000 strong-methodology studies about vaccines not causing autism have as much weight as the massive anti-vaccine movement backed by 1 study using known-fraudulent data, even though one of these only has "evidence" in the form of co
Re: (Score:2)
My college's newspaper made a controversial decision to run a Holocaust denier's ad and justified it as "we need to air both sides of this issue." (This was in the late 90's.) Airing both sides of an issue is often a good thing, but there are instances when one side is so clearly wrong that all "airing both sides" does is make both sides seem equivalent. It elevates the clearly wrong side and degrades the clearly correct side so that both are just another point of view.
Re: (Score:3)
Pay $20 to listen to what you want to see.
How do you accurately measure bias? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, like their main news channel being self-described as "fair and balanced"... oh, wait!
I have plenty of conservative friends that think fox news is less biased and plenty of liberal friends who disagree. I even have conservative friends that think that fox news is a little too left leaning.
I'm not sure how you even go about measuring bias. Do you find the most conservative and the most liberal person you can find and ask them? I would love to see more shows with opposing views but it would be hard to do the extremes without turning in to the Jerry Springer Show. I've found that it's easy to talk politics to people who are in the rational middle but if you get a diehard democrat or a diehard republican then they get very angry if you disagree with them. Both sides have taken the moral high ground and think anyone who disagrees with them is evil and irrational.
Re: (Score:1)
Fox news isn't even news: http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=27363
Re:How do you accurately measure bias? (Score:5, Informative)
I know it's not popular to try and approach things as scientifically as possible, but in this case they describe their methodology in the original paper. [hbs.edu]
In simple terms, they identify text samples which express either a Republican or a Democratic view, and then tally them up.
This seems like a more disciplined approach than asking one's friends what they think.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That part seems relatively easy - just follow the platform and highlight parts that differ. This would be particularly easy for wedge issues. But I'd critique the usefulness of defining "unbiased" as "biased equally in both directions". It would seem that the absolute value of bias would be more useful in determining whether a source contains bias. If you are looking for a balanced discussion between Republican and Democratic viewpoints, then this study represents a useful measure.
Re: (Score:2)
That part seems relatively easy - just follow the platform and highlight parts that differ.
Unless the person doing the classification is unbiased which is likely impossible then they are going to add their own biases. For instance, I have seen many lists of "just the facts/positions" comparing Clinton and Trump and I can always tell which party actually created the list of positions for the candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you inadvertently just provided a demonstration of how the author's methodology can work: someone authors a bullshit list, and then you (the third party) can analyze it and tell how biased it is one way or another. For your critical analogy to hold up, I would need to accept that Wikipedia has a limited subset of topics such that it can have a bias through simple omission. Wikipedia is slightly more complete than your standard internet meme :)
Re:How do you accurately measure bias? (Score:5, Insightful)
That approach only indicates an equal amount of bias. It doesn't indicate if the Democrat views are expressed where the bulk of evidence suggests their views aren't loony, and the Republican views are expressed where the bulk of evidence suggests they're actually correct.
What if you wrote an article about vaccine causing autism, where you cited 12 rigorously-evaluated scientific opinions, and 12 fervently-espoused lunatic ravings? The article would tally as "unbiased", but it would actually be biased: a preponderance of evidence would discredit the lunatics, yet the article would be shored-up to give them equal footing. In other words: you'd handicap the visibly-correct view and give additional, unmerited support to the visibly-unsupportable view, slanting the article toward a side that can't stand on its own merits.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you want a semantic argument over the word "balanced". I'm not really interested in that. The authors explicitly lay out their methodology, so there isn't really any ambiguity here - "balanced" in this context is simply +1 point for a Republican viewpoint and -1 for a Democratic viewpoint. I think repeating the study with different criteria would be very interesting - in your case, classing stuff by what philosophy it falls into. I'm partial to the scientific method, myself, so it would be in
Re: (Score:3)
They provided a definition of "balanced", yes. My point is more that "balanced" is hard to measure and that their definition has procedural flaws.
There's a secondary issue in that people already perceive the concept of "fair" and "balanced" as a positive thing, and so will tend to accept a reasonable ideal of what "balanced" might mean and then accept conclusions. That means a large amount of the population won't scrutinize the semantics in the way I did, and then will accept that a certain set of info
Re: (Score:2)
I think I agree with everything you wrote. My initial reply in this thread was to someone (Wycliffe) claiming that, hey, my friends don't think Fox is biased! So please read it from within that context... I didn't mean to give the study too much credit - but it's a hell of a lot more rigorous than an informal recollection of past conversations with friends :)
Re: (Score:2)
My point is more that "balanced" is hard to measure and that their definition has procedural flaws.
Can you suggest a better one? Their definition aligns with what I intuitively expected from the word "balanced". Your point seems to imply that there is a different definition that people who didn't read the details would assume, and I'm not sure what that might be. I suppose some people might read "balanced" as "accurate", which would clearly be fallacious, but people who interpret what they read so loosely are going to get it wrong in any case.
Re: (Score:3)
Asking for a better approach is usually the last refuge of people who can't prove themselves right. You're also opening yourself up for much of the other arguments I made by claiming what you intuitively expect from the word "balanced": most people expect "balanced" to equate to "informative" and, by extension, "correct."
I maintain that giving less-credible positions similar weight to credible positions is not balance. It would not be balanced to write an article on homosexual adoption that gave equal
Re: (Score:2)
Asking for a better approach is usually the last refuge of people who can't prove themselves right.
Dude, I wasn't out to prove anything. I asked a question... and it's quite a reasonable one, in my opinion. I'm not saying that you must be able to come up with a better definition in order to argue against the one they used, but thought perhaps you had something in mind. A simple "No, I don't know a better definition, but I think this one is misleading for the reasons I gave, and I think it's possible that someone could find a better approach to evaluate the question" would have been reasonable.
I maintain that giving less-credible positions similar weight to credible positions is not balance.
True, certa
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you can write a balanced article that directly and persistently notates the inaccuracy in the belief that homosexuals are child predators.
You can also write an article that says, "Controversy", subheading, "Pederasty", describing "the concern" that many homosexuals are child predators and will adopt children largely to sodomize and indoctrinate into the gay agenda. In such a style, it appears that this is an open debate of merited concern. You can then claim the article is "balanced".
If you bring
Re: (Score:2)
If you bring up the topic of the homosexuality-pedophilia link to perform a thorough rebuttal, you're not giving weight or credence to that position
If you bring it up in order to perform a rebuttal, true. However, if you bring it up because that's a widely-held belief (from one side of the debate, but without empirical evidence) and then present the rebuttal because that's another widely-held belief (from the other side, which has empirical evidence) then you've written a balanced article.
As for values, there are actually real facts and solid points behind that, as well. A society should tolerate homosexuality as it does heterosexuality because tolerance is, from a scientific standpoint, a mature defense mechanism.
I never said otherwise. My point about debates which are purely value questions didn't include homosexuality, at least in modern societies.
Abortion has a lot of real facts surrounding it, as well, most notably [a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with the value that pro-lifers place on a fetus]
You're just missing the lif
Re: (Score:2)
If you bring it up in order to perform a rebuttal, true. However, if you bring it up because that's a widely-held belief (from one side of the debate, but without empirical evidence) and then present the rebuttal because that's another widely-held belief (from the other side, which has empirical evidence) then you've written a balanced article.
Actually, if you bring it up because it's a widely-held belief that is empirically-wrong, you're addressing a topic which your readers will frequently raise to themselves, with likely-wrong conclusions. Bringing it up in order to demolish it is informative and correct.
If you bring up both sides and simply cover that there is an argument, but don't point out that the body of evidence has firmly suggested that one side is full of lunatics and the other is actually correct, you've presented a "controversy"
Re: (Score:1)
It's sort of easy to tell. Listen to Bill O'Reilly on his show, then listen to him when he's talking to John Stewart.
Two different people, two different situations. He's clearly pandering on his show, when he's in public, talking to his friend with a different viewpoint and an audience, he's really smart and has a more convincing tack.
It's just like the register, read ANYTHING about Apple and you can tell they have an axe to grind.
I'd definitely like more neutral (if boring) news; CSMonitor does a good job
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem is when the diehards (from either side) think they they are in the middle. My father thinks I've been "brainwashed" (his words) by liberal propaganda because I'm not voting for Trump and because I don't exclusively watch FOX News. He doesn't care about my reasons or any political arguments. All he cares is that my views are to the left of his and thus I'm a liberal. If you asked him where he was on the political spectrum, he'd probably claim to be in the center.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure how you even go about measuring bias.
Statements can fall (roughly) into three categories:
1) Statements that are well supported by facts.
2) Statements that are poorly supported, thus contain quite a bit of uncertainty.
3) Statements that are preferences (ie, I prefer lower taxes and a weaker safety net).
You can measure bias on all of these. The first is easy, because a biased viewpoint is outright wrong:
1 example) "Rich people pay no taxes" or "we could get rid of the national debt if we got rid of welfare" (both wrong).
When there is qui
Re:How do you accurately measure bias? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure how you even go about measuring bias
Wikipedia's NPOV policy is actually a good standard, although sometimes the implementation leaves something to be desired. And trying to follow it was a very good exercise for me earlier in life. It taught me how to speak about multiple points of view respectfully even when I disagreed with others.
Under NPOV you don't report "absolute truth." You report what people believe, why they believe it, etc. It can be very insightful as a tool to understand other viewpoints.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not in their selection of what to report (and this applies to other media as well). So while the NYT might spend a lot of time reporting yet another apocalyptic AGW prediction, FoxNews will instead concentrate on yet another overblown Hillary email scandal.
Stepping back for a moment. . . (Score:2)
There is no linkage between the Palin advertising for "targeted districts" and the actual shooting. The shooter was reportedly obsessed with Ms. Gifford, and was diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic, and was eventually sentenced to life in prison. [infogalactic.com]
Voting rolls show that Loughner was registered as an Independent [infogalactic.com], and acquaintances report that he had a long-established dislike for Giffords, and that he was apparently an enthusiast of conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh geez, can this election be over already! The insanity can't continue any longer. Finish the election, then the winners and losers start to quiet down to the normal background conspiracy hubbub confined to fringe sites.
Please watch the SNL from this weekend, actors playing Clinton and Trump get tired of all the name calling and rush out holding hands while in character to go hug strangers on the street. We're just stick of it, neither person is the ultimate evil so stop treating it that way. The 75% T
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Says the anonymous russian propagandist desperate to get Vlad's pet jaundiced chihuahua into the white house so he doesn't get disappeared in the next week.
Re: (Score:3)
Fox news was a stroke of business genius -- have a different slant that doesn't make people feel attacked. It worked and shot to popularity.
The problem with ABC and to a lesser degree CNN is their True Believers refuse to recognize an equal bias on "their side" (to say nothing of NPR.)
Most bias isn't in fact checking, but the choice of stories to harp on, all day, every day, shouldn't the govrnment do something, wink!
Re:Wikipedia no more biased than British ivory tow (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it, the rest of the English-speaking world is more liberal than the USA.
The problem here is US politics which has a conservative bias, not Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:2)
Appeal to popularity still taught in the ivory tower?
Yep. And so is false equivalence.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying liberalism is good because it is popular (which I guess is the appeal to popularity you are referring to?). I'm only stating the fact that if you measure bias as a deviation from the center of the left-right spectrum of US politics, then of course any world-wide project will appear biased.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been wanting to start a conservative progressive party. Conservative politics dictates that you always look before you leap, and that you should never leap if there is a ladder; and yet we are surrounded by progressives who have turned any forward movement into an act of liberal psychosis, jumping off cliffs because there may be something nice at the bottom. The polarized politics in America especially and infesting the rest of the world more-mildly means conservatives don't even want to approach th
Re: (Score:1)