this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
507 points (98.5% liked)

politics

25961 readers
2248 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) sent a letter to the nonprofit operator of Wikipedia alleging a pattern of liberal bias in articles on the collaborative encyclopedia.

"I write to request information about ideological bias on the Wikipedia platform and at the Wikimedia Foundation," Cruz wrote to Wikimedia Foundation CEO Maryana Iskander in a letter dated October 3. "Wikipedia began with a noble concept: crowdsource human knowledge using verifiable sources and make it free to the public. That's what makes reports of Wikipedia's systemic bias especially troubling."

Citing research from the conservative Manhattan Institute, Cruz wrote that "researchers have found that articles on the site often reflect a left-wing bias." Cruz alleged that "bias is particularly evident in Wikipedia's reliable sources/perennial sources list" because it describes "MSNBC and CNN as 'generally reliable' sources, while listing Fox News as a 'generally unreliable' source for politics and science. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center gets a top rating, but the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, is a 'blacklisted' and 'deprecated' source that Wikipedia's editors have determined 'promotes disinformation.'"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jumbie@lemmy.zip 56 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The point of him making this dumb comparison is to quietly sell the idea to The Stupids that Heritage, Fox and other propaganda places deserve equal consideration as reality.

[–] whiwake@lemmy.cafe 25 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They need to make their own site. Magapedia? Wokepedia? Pedopedia?

[–] BlueEther@no.lastname.nz 38 points 1 day ago (4 children)
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Wikipedia tries so hard to keep all articles factual and free of value judgements, while Conservapedia strives to jam partisan value judgements into every single sentence. Even their article on the Titanic is mainly there to whine about liberals. And conservatives are too stupid to understand the difference.

[–] whiwake@lemmy.cafe 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh, wow. That’s pretty wild.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (4 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia

It gets really wild when you see what motivated its creation. These people are unbelievably stupid snowflakes.

Schlafly also claimed that Wikipedia's allowance of both Common Era and Anno Domini notation was anti-Christian bias.

OMG! Using CE for dates!?

/clutches pearls

Also, apparently they don't teach very goodly at the Eagle Forum University. This guy seemingly has not even had a 101-level course in ethics...

However, some users may object to certain entries, such as that for 'Atheism': "Since atheists have no God, as a philosophical framework atheism simply provides no logical basis for any moral standard.

"They live their lives according to the rule that 'anything goes'. In recent years, this has led to a large rise in crime, drug use, pre-marital sex, teenage pregnancy, pedophilia and bestiality."

This is the kind of argumentation you'll hear from complete dumbasses in junior high: "You guyz don't even believe in my god, so coming from a framework that bears no relevancy outside of accepting that framework on faith, I declare that you have no morals!"

Er, okay then.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 day ago

It’s been said before but if all that is keeping you from raping and pillaging is fear of an invisible sky daddy then that says far more about you than anybody else.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

It's worse than that, it's always such a self-report: "the only thing stopping me from doing evil is fear of punishment, so everybody else must be inherently terrible shitheads too!"

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago

The website was established in 2006 by American attorney and activist Andrew Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly,[4][5

I was not aware of this.

The shit apple doesn't fall far from the shit tree, Rand.

[–] whiwake@lemmy.cafe 4 points 1 day ago

I’ve never diddled a child. I’m such a terrible person!!!

/s

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

The Ted Cruz entry isn't very flattering.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Came here to say this. Brought to you by the son of that witch Phyllis Schlafly.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think Elon Misk was going to make grokpedia by using ai to redo Wikipedia.

[–] whiwake@lemmy.cafe 2 points 1 day ago

He would just get angry when it condemned Hitler.