Do you work for them? You seem to have some kind of first hand knowledge of what took place here. To the majority of us, it’s, well, just Wikipedia being typical bias Wikipedia.
Do you work for them? You seem to have some kind of first hand knowledge of what took place here. To the majority of us, it’s, well, just Wikipedia being typical bias Wikipedia.
Imagine in the middle of your town square there was a very very high pile of paper and plenty of pens. The town decreed and had police/guards established to do the following:
1) create an encyclopedia on the pages
2) do so by allowing anyone to walk up and write things on the pages, anytime, and nothing on it gets done unless there's a random volunteer writing/editing it
there is no central committee or decision making. changes are made as you go by the volunteers and only the volunteers. no officials decide anything.
3) if someone is changing someone else wrote, they keep the old part, now hidden, for reference
4) everyone annotates their changes with their initials
That's literally what wikiepedia is. I simply know that about it. And know that those other links around the page lead to the history and the past changes, so I can look at them.
The bias of Wikipedia, given the construct that it is, is the bias of the editors who choose to participate. Wokey Katherine Maher decided to reduce the young-white-male-computer-nerd focus of WP by increasing outreach to women editors and people in other countries. That worked and increased the number of perspectives involved.
The solution to what everyone is whining about is to simply learn how to edit WP and go do it. Six motivated people from this comment thread giving less than 8 hours of total effort each would make for a perfectly balanced poll aggregation page there. Twelve motivated people from the comment thread doing the same would imbalance the page to the right.
Do you work for them? You seem to have some kind of first hand knowledge of what took place here. To the majority of us, it’s, well, just Wikipedia being typical bias Wikipedia.
Imagine in the middle of your town square there was a very very high pile of paper and plenty of pens. The town decreed and had police/guards established to do the following:
1) create an encyclopedia on the pages
2) do so by allowing anyone to walk up and write things on the pages, anytime, and nothing on it gets done unless there's a random volunteer writing/editing it
there is no central committee or decision making. changes are made as you go by the volunteers and only the volunteers. no officials decide anything.
3) if someone is changing someone else wrote, they keep the old part, now hidden, for reference
4) everyone annotates their changes with their initials
That's literally what wikiepedia is. I simply know that about it. And know that those other links around the page lead to the history and the past changes, so I can look at them.
The bias of Wikipedia, given the construct that it is, is the bias of the editors who choose to participate. Wokey Katherine Maher decided to reduce the young-white-male-computer-nerd focus of WP by increasing outreach to women editors and people in other countries. That worked and increased the number of perspectives involved.
The solution to what everyone is whining about is to simply learn how to edit WP and go do it. Six motivated people from this comment thread giving less than 8 hours of total effort each would make for a perfectly balanced poll aggregation page there. Twelve motivated people from the comment thread doing the same would imbalance the page to the right.