Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
When I want to read something relatively well verified and unbiased I reach for Wikipedia. They are doing a better job than any other source I found on the internet so far on keeping things clear of BS
Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize "reliable sources" and be neutral among them, but not give equal weight to "unreliable sources".
Here's the thing: people have by now figured out that if you first define sources that say things you like as "reliable" and sources that say things you don't like as "unreliable", then you can turn Wikipedia into a propaganda organ for whatever you want.
Wikipedia is neither an especially good source nor an especially bad one.
Bias on Wikipedia is very bad now. One of the co-founders of Wikipedia has declared it “propaganda.” It doesn’t get more damning than that. Indeed, I’ve been involved in certain pages which have been butchered beyond recognition over the years thanks to power capture in the mod hierarchy. You wouldn’t BELIEVE how bad it is on many pages. Anything which is even vaguely contentious is guaranteed to be ideologically captured.
You mean that co-founder Larry Sanger that is full on Trump supporter and believer of conspiracy theories that claims Wikipedia has a leftist bias?
That guy that claimed there are "multiple versions of facts"?
Yeah, he isn't a great source, I can tell you that.
Examples?