https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
You can notice a bias towards the state media from pro-capitalist regimes from the above.
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2026
166 points (77.9% liked)
Memes
57027 readers
484 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think you may have misunderstood point of that image.
It not on the sources being biased(there are no unbiased sources), but noting the easily notable bias in the Wikipedia source selection, the preference for media funded by pro-capitalist regimes.
Do you see an issue in noting how Wikipedia has this bias, and going against the notion by some that it is unbiased or neutral?
Yes, because the "easily-notable bias" is just a result of discussions done at different times to different evidence, and claiming bias is an overgeneralization.
Bias just means that you have a worldview, which everyone has whether they acknowledge it or not simply by living and existing in the real world.
Ok, but I wasn't the one implying Wikipedia editors as a group are biased.
They are. Everyone has a bias.
Me:
You:
Groups usually cancel bias. And the leftover bias is not "easily notable"
Lmao, so we're just saying shit now, alright. Famously unbiased:
I think you struggle to understand what the word "bias" means. It seems like it just short-circuits in your brain to "bad". A group typically enforce the bias inherent to it.
It requires actively being aware of ones' bias to counteract it, which is one of many reasons why Wikipedias presentation as a "neutral" source of knowledge is an issue. Because it makes doofuses like you trust it like gospel and react like fanatics to the heresy that maybe the website founded by a zionist, with a longtime issue with power-users (not to mention the infiltration of Nazis that gets brought up once in a while in a feelgood story about someone taking them on), a rule against ~~being critical of "approved sources~~ ~~investegation~~ making use of primary sources, an arbitrary approach as to how trustworthy a source is (the main judgement of which seems to be "do they reinforce state dept. talking points?"); well, it might have some issues.
I trust Wikipedia because I edit on it, and I have no will to continue this conversation.
Groups do not cancel bias. Wikipedia is overwhelmingly western, which becomes a western bias. Groups reinforce bias.
I genuinely don't know what you people even think bias is at this point