Also Wikipedia has become so ideologically biased that its information is no longer reliable.
I avoid using links to it in my Hive posts.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Also Wikipedia has become so ideologically biased that its information is no longer reliable.
I avoid using links to it in my Hive posts.
Anything libelous on Wikipedia has the potential to get the contributor served with a lawsuit so it is rare for idiological bias to survive once reported. Wikipedia is far from perfect but it would be a stretch to write it off as idiologically biased.
I imagine the main complainers on this front would be revisionists and radical extremists.
That is simply not true for many reasons including:
Most ideological bias or even outright falsehood is not legally actionable.
Generally you have to defame a natural person or damage a business with false claims to be able to bring legal action. In the US its even harder.
Some of the most powerful editors & contributors are anonymous.
While the US is heavily propagandised putting little merit on libel and legal falsehoods other countries are far more involved. The world is a big place with some legal jurisdictions more rigorous than others. Not all good but not all bad either.
Powerful anonymous libelous contributors that were producing heavily biased content would see the foundation itself being targeted for legal action. It might be slow in happening due to cognitave momentum and vanity but it happens. One thing that is an issue is that Wiki tends to play safe legally a bit too often.
Yeah, it's a real problem with Wikipedia..