zlacker

Peter Hitchens had a hell of a time trying to fix Wikipedia's appalling biases:

https://hitchensblogarchive.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/goodbye...

Search the site for other examples of the fun he had with it.

I'd choose Wikipedia over AI, of course, so I'm ultimately grateful it's there. But better than both would be a well-edited traditional encyclopedia, written by experts in a single voice, and possibly peer-reviewed.

>>geye12+(OP)
> written by experts

…and let the bickering begin…

Nothing is going to be immune from people accusing it of bias, etc. Wikipedia is pretty damn good (and free).

>>JKCalh+N
This is true but Britannica articles are also written by LESS people

Less room for activism and other things

>>geye12+(OP)
I wouldn't take an anti-vaxxers word on Wikipedia being biased. They believe heavily in something that has no scientific basis.

>>geye12+(OP)
I decided to look at why the original block happened.. it's on [0], search for "July 2018", then check out administrator's reply, including the links to recent edits.

I had no opinion either way, but wow, I have to agree with the block here. Peter put words like "This was a ridiculous statement" into wikipedia article, which is as far from wikipedia tone as it can get; and then completely failed to understand administrator's advice on the tone.

If you want to show wikipedia has problems, you might want to choose some other example.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clockba...

>>geye12+(OP)
I don't know the details but amongst his views apparently is:

>Hitchens has frequently rejected the scientific consensus that human activity is linked to global warming, stating that “there is no proof that this is so”

I wonder if that relates to one of the appalling biases he tried to fix? I'm ok with a bias towards scientific accuracy myself.