politics

wikipedia just tells the truth it just happens that the truth has a left-wing bias

It must not be protecting pedofiles hard enough

I think most of the world is considered left wing compared to the US.

Hell, even our "extreme right" would be more left leaning than the US left.

So yeah, any website that has international contributors, will be "left wing" from the perspective of the US.

To quote "Stephen Colbert" (the character) at one of the George W. Bush White House Correspondants Dinners:

Reality has a well-known liberal 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.

Fox News, the one that successfully argued in court they they were for entertainment purposes only and not actual news? That Fox News?

Left wing bias = says objectively true things about me I don’t like.

Ted Cruz thinks we should stop attacking pedophiles

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.'"

It's kind of funny how when your goal becomes to present factual information, there aren't many especially right-leaning sources. I wonder why that might be.

Can you think of why that might be the case, Ted?

Not false. Reality is proven to have a left-wing bias.

Any publisher of truth exhibits strong anti-fascist bias. That's because fascism is inherently anti-truth

I love it when this comes up in internet arguments. The mob often agrees with an individual's statement that Wikipedia is bad, and then when asked for an example it's always 100% something absolutely insane. The logical conclusion is that we're all wrong in different ways, but some people simply refuse to accept it and argue with the encyclopedia.

Do not treat this as just a tantrum. It's the right's playbook of moving the overton window to the right by taking extreme positions and invoking the golden mean fallacy. It certainly has worked on MSM.

while listing Fox News as a 'generally unreliable' source for politics and science.

You mean that Fox News that argued it’s an entertainment show that no reasonable person would take seriously?

Reality has a liberal bias

I recently looked into this on another forum where someone shared some articles supposedly proving bias. One article was itself highly biased to the right, so not particularly credible.

The other article, from an organization that ranked the bias of news sources, was very neutral and objective, took accusations of bias seriously, went into detail, and removed the "unbiased" classification from Wikipedia, but didn't conclude any provable bias, leaving it unranked. The best example of bias they had was the fact that articles on socialism and communism didn't list Soviet atrocities, but those atrocities have their own pages and are also mentioned on pages of the countries involved, so that was not a great example.

All these accusations are just the result of a massive right-wing campaign against facts and reality-based reporting. Everything that doesn't follow their propaganda is biased, according to them.

The truth has a left wing bias.

If reality is left of you, maybe your position is far too right?

Reality does not have a right-wing bias. Reality does not have a left-wing bias. But when the right has festered into such an anti-scientific culture as to be at war with truth and reality itself to the point at putting us all at an accelerated risk of a new dark age - then reality is maybe just a little more biased in favor of literally everyone else.

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.

You mean Rafael Cruz, who uses the chosen first name of Ted?

Reality has a left wing bias

Why are we still taking these right wing fascist morons seriously?

Now seems like a good time to do a backup.

For local use: https://www.howtogeek.com/260023/how-to-download-wikipedia-for-offline-at-your-fingertips-reading/

If you have a server: https://blog.stefan-koch.name/2024/11/14/self-hosting-wikipedia

(Kiwix-serve is what you're looking for)

Unfortunately I can't vouch for either of these instructions as I followed instructions from a now defunct privacy podcast.

Sounds like the modern equivalent of burning books to me.

To fascists like Cruz, "left wing bias" means "they are reporting unbiased data instead of compliantly rewriting everything to align with our centralized propaganda machine."

"Wahhhh! They don't let us lie to you and treat us as reliable sources!"

I can't stand these scum...

Attacking Wikipedia can not be normalized, we must protect it.

I continue to think its extremely insensitive to call him Ted. He doesn't believe in preferred names. Use his real name Rafael Edward Cruz. Yes its /s but I'm serious. Call that POS Rafael.

Ted Cruz picks a fight with mirror, accusing it of falsely making him look like Grandpa Munster grew a beard.

Sorry Ted, no one will ever forget how Trump made your suck his cock after he insulted your wife.

Apparently things like truth and reality are left wing now. Good luck with that, psychotic ultra right wingers.