Culture Intelligent Design Media

Notes from Wikipedia, the information age’s public landfill: Cofounder thinks ID article “appallingly biased”

Spread the love
File:Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg
Creative Commons

Yes. But so? Any topic you didn’t know much about could be handled in an “appallingly biased” way on Wikipedia.

From David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Views:

Wikipedia Co-Founder Blasts “Appallingly Biased” Wikipedia Entry on Intelligent Design

When it comes to intelligent design, Wikipedia and its axe-grinding editors are ridiculously biased and unfair. And guess what? Even Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger agrees. He wrote as much last week on the Talk page for the Wiki article on ID, under the heading, “My $0.02 on the issue of bias”:

As the originator of and the first person to elaborate Wikipedia’s neutrality policy, and as an agnostic who believes intelligent design to be completely wrong, I just have to say that this article is appallingly biased. It simply cannot be defended as neutral. If you want to understand why, read this. I’m not here to argue the point, as I completely despair of persuading Wikipedians of the error of their ways. I’m just officially registering my protest. —Larry Sanger (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

A philosophy PhD, Dr. Sanger worked with Jimmy Wales to found Wikipedia in 2001. He is a self-described “zealot for neutrality,” and reasonably concludes that Wikipedia’s content on intelligent design is anything but neutral. This is the man who came up with the name “Wikipedia.” More.

Teachers who allow their students to cite Wikipedia as a source and/or to use it exclusively as a source of links have no business complaining even as Wikipedia becomes an intellectual toxic waste dump, let alone landfill.

The basic idea behind Wikipedia is wrong for a number of reasons. Here’s one: The model assumes that the people most likely to have the needed background and perspective are the ones who care most.

No. Anyone familiar with the behavior of trolls knows that trolls care more than anyone and usually have the least to offer the public. People who have the needed background and perspective tend to have much less free time than an angry troll.

Wikipedia cannot fix that problem without restoring the idea of qualified authority. In the meantime, it should be considered a reference source for trolls. Professionals, especially educators, should just not be using it.

See also: ID and Wikipedia as the ultimate post-modern encyclopedia

Wikipedians diminish another high achiever sympathetic to ID: Klinghoffer adds, “So it goes with Wikipedia, which your kids are probably consulting right now for their latest school assignment.”

Wikipedia founder wades into fake war on fake news

Larry Sanger, Co-founder of Wikipedia, Agrees That it Does not Follow its Own Neutrality Policy

How Wikipedia can turn fiction into fact (Sourced enough times, the fiction becomes “troo”)

Wikipedia: The world of heavily edited unfacts

Wikipedia as astroturf

Wikipedia’s declining stats

Wikipedia hacked by elite sources now (The main problem is that the people who use Wikipedia do not care whether it is false or true. “Wikipedia is my library” is the new diagnostic for irresponsible laziness.)

When you disappear from Wikipedia is when you matter, apparently. Klinghoffer also provides a sample of people who, according to Wikipedia, are supposed to be notable compared to paleontologist Bechly (show showed sympathy for ID). Judge for yourself.

Whackapedia whacks a civil liberties group

Is social media killing Wikipedia?

How Wikipedia can turn fiction into fact (Sourced enough times, the fiction becomes “troo”)

Wikipedia: The world of heavily edited unfacts

Wikipedia as astroturf

Wikipedia’s declining stats

and

Mathematician complains Wikipedia is promoting “pseudo-science” of multiverse (Then there were the minor revelations that core articles “don’t earn even Wikipedia’s own middle-ranking quality scores” and that some “editors” are paid by outside sources.)

7 Replies to “Notes from Wikipedia, the information age’s public landfill: Cofounder thinks ID article “appallingly biased”

  1. 1
    tribune7 says:

    OTOH, it beats the Washington Post or — heaven forbid — the Today Show/Kimmel/Colbert/Comedy Central/Facebook etc. where most Americans get their information from.

    Wikipedia is not all bad but if you trust any source unquestioningly you will be soon fooled.

  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    “Wikipedia, the information age’s public landfill”

    That seems accurate.

    But this shouldn’t be surprising at all.

  3. 3
    Axel says:

    “When it comes to intelligent design, Wikipedia and its axe-grinding editors are ridiculously biased and unfair.”

    And in opposing ID (2+2=4), Wikipee are not even acknowledging the truth, in terms of the most elementary logic, so it would be touted by them as ‘bias’.

    Their preference for peddling falsehoods, and as the corollary, here, perceiving the truth as bias, indicates the same level of immorality and irrationality as torturing confessions from people. That kind of ‘logic’ ! Truth as a kind of post-modern bias ; Not even a ‘first among equals’ !

  4. 4
    Dionisio says:

    Even the allegedly ‘serious’ science publications should be consulted cautiously:

    http://retractionwatch.com/

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    It’s called slander and outright deceit, folks.

  6. 6
    Dionisio says:

    KF,

    That’s the right way to call it. Thanks.

  7. 7
    polistra says:

    ” People who have the needed background and perspective tend to have much less free time than an angry troll.”

    True and pretty much automatic.

    AND people with the needed background also generally have NDAs or similar career-based restrictions on their ability to make comments. Not a fact of nature, and could use a solution.

Leave a Reply