• OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Even for political content it’s damn good. Every time someone on Lemmy points to an explicit article of bias, it falls into one of 3 categories:

    • Slightly unfair bias, but still largely true
    • Article is correct, Lemmy cannot provide a reliable source proving otherwise
    • Article is incorrect, reliable source found, article amended

    The third case happened once in an article about a UN Resolution on North Korea, and it was because the original article source was slightly misinterpreted. But yea, basically what I’m trying to say is if a “political article” is “wrong” but you can’t prove it, it’s not the political article that’s wrong but you.

    Edit: ITT - People upset with my analysis, but not willing to provide sources to the articles they disagree with

    • nutomic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Wikipedia completely slanders people it doesnt like. For example Daniele Ganser who helped to reveal Operation Gladio.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        And Wikipedia has an overall left-bias, because of the demographic of contributors.

        FROM YOUR LINK

        Until 2021, we rated Wikipedia as Center, but changed them to Not Rated because the online encyclopedia does not fit neatly into AllSides’ media bias rating methodologies, which were developed specifically for news sites.

        • Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Allsides, that rates media outlets, doesn’t give a media bias rating. However, that page I linked still shows the bias even if it doesn’t get them a media bias rating.