Wikipedia bias?

I've seen some of you call it kikepedia. But the fact that anyone can edit articles is an attempt to keep it bias-free.

Is wikipedia biased?

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2gsslk/is_there_a_list_of_all_the_gamers_are_dead/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory
en.metapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Just look at "white genocide" they cite it as a conspiracy theory.

They associate the alt right movement with "nationalism, anti-Semitism, and white supremacy". That pretty much sums it up

There have been attempts over the years to address bias at Wikipedia, but there's so many rabid liberal editors guarding all the important articles that any change you make is inevitably overwritten.

...

So it's pretty sccurate?

...

As a misnomer 'White Genocide' belongs in the round-file.

White displacement is a better term. It's not genocide unless you have force being used against whites, which it is not.

However you might say that when the policy of the government is open borders and you do not allow the local population to defend themselves against invading hordes ( because government has monopoly on force, then you have force being used against whites to keep them docile and accept their fate. ) But that is really a stretch.

>look up Protocols a year ago to find out about it
>they list it as a conspiracy theory
>only given reason it's listed as a conspiracy theory is that it's anti-Semitic
>the only source they give is a 16 year old's essay
>now
>essay is gone and it's some jew Shekelberg source
>they're claiming Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler distributed it

I'd also like to point out if you talk to any kikepedia staff they themselves will say "Wikipedia is about taking the information from credible sources, it's not our job to verify if it's true or not."
That right there alone, without the anecdotal evidence, should be enough to convince anyone it's not a reliable source.

I also enjoy how obvious it is that the narrative has changed, back in 2006 you'd never find anyone but kids saying wikipedia was a reliable source of information.

If you asked any adult they'd call you a dipshit for using it and tell you to not believe everything you read online or hear on the TV.
Now the narrative is "The government is 100% trustworthy, there is no global conspiracy and there is no manipulation of the media."
Are the stupid fucks who buy this rubbish genuine or are they just plants put there to repeat it so the next generation of kids believe it? I refuse to believe anyone who grew up in or before the 90s could be so stupid as to believe any of this shit is reliable.

>force isn't being used
>hold whites to an unfair standard where they are locked in cages if they say something negative about another race (hate speech) while also allowing non whites to say what everr they want about whites, sometimes even calling for their total elimination
>Import non whites from Africa and the middle east while forcing white people to pay for it, and arrest whites who speak out against it
>use the white man's money to teach sex ed to said non whites while fully admitting the goal is to get them to breed with the locals (who are white)
Where the government is involved, so is force, and furthermore, said force is applied to whites more strictly than it is to non whites through laws such as hate speech

Wikipedia articles should always be taken with a grain of salt. It's not just insane lefties that edit articles to fit their own views, but retards and trolls. The site is a fucking minefield of disinfo.

best example.

you can't even edit it

Didn't follow gamergate.

Why is this article inaccurate?

Nerds got tired of journalists being lying liberal hipsters trying to force feminism into their games so they called them on it and cited some whore getting 5/5 scores on all her games and she COINCIDENTALLY had sex with every single reviewer and was in their little hipster circle of friends.

They found out she cheated on her boyfriend and pussywhipped him hard, they exposed it, everyone got called a sexist at least twice and then Sup Forums invited Reddit over (although I suspect Reddit infiltrated Sup Forums at that point and merely invited more Reddit over), and they made 8gag.

Sup Forums fueled the flames quiet a bit, a few journalists were exposed as doing the same and also straight up lying about being attacked, and "gamergate" became the new "anti-Semite"/"Racist".

There's more to it I'm sure but that's what I saw firsthand.
In short a bunch of fat video game fucks called a bunch of weasley kike journalists on their lies and deceit, said kikes got butt blasted and cried holocaust.

The only proof needed against wikipedia is that you're not allowed to make a page on cultural marxism, as it's considered a "conspiracy theory."

gamergate in a nutshell;

some gamer don't want the corrupt press to go buddy buddy with devs and publisher.
They find out that some Journalist slept with a developer for publicity.
She was a feminist, SJW slepper agents hijack every platform destroy the gaming community by dividing them.
Gamer lose, Feminist win.
They write Wikipedia article

>>look up Protocols a year ago to find out about it

They say it's a "forgery," which is funny because there is no author listed.

I didn't even believe in it until I saw the amount of disinfo trying to bury it.
I figured any global Jewish conspiracy would be smart enough to only spread their protocols by mouth and ritual instead on something that can easily be copied and distributed.

Maybe that's what they wanted people to think, though.

This user has a point in his green text.

However, what is being done to Westerners, especially in Europe, does fit the definition of ethnic cleansing.

Hey cutie... Wanna jump in my pokeball? :)

>buttmad goobergabber: the post

It's biased in favor of obsessive activists who have the time to learn the absurd rules and bludgeon their opinions into articles due to their lack of lives.

RARE
A
R
E

Never heard of you before. Neat

Gamergate was the worst thing to happen to this site. It brought in so many normalfags and Redditors.
I never got why it was such a big deal because I figured it was obvious to everyone that the journalists and garbage hipster developers making shitty games were all fucking each other while trying to shove their liberal arts agenda bullshit down the public's throat.

Holy shit. It's real. Fuck wikipedia.

While he does show his bias on his language, that is pretty much what happened. I never saw any legitimate refutation against people saying that one woman who slept with all those journalists benefitted from it in positive reviews, they just cried "sexism" and claimed the basis of it was because they were being criticised, and that she had a vagina. The evidence itself was never touched by them, the whole thing was buried by white knights and shouts of "misogyny". And that's not including all of the evidence of bigger money being involved.

Wikipedia is full of high school to young college kids who have all the free time in the world and neediness to be part of a community. Anything remotely controversial is going to be biased.

It became a big deal because one side had a mountain of evidence backing their claim, and the other just shouted "sexism" and "misogyny" at the evidence, and people somehow came to the conclusion that they were being victimised just because they had a gash between their legs.

People know that journalism is a corrupt industry that doesn't follow its own oath, but when it's pointed out in other cases, many at least do get somewhat pissed about it. People not only did not get pissed, they bought the weak lie that one side was attacking the other for no other reason except that they were women. It was one giant head in the sand moment.

Yes it is biased.

Type in black power. You get an article on a series of black power articles & the overall tone of the article is "Yeah soul brotha be proud of who you are."

Type in White power. You get redirected to an article called white supremacy that's part of a series of racial discrimination. You can guess what the tone of the article is.

It is biased since they have a policy of consensus, that is, you can be the author of a book and try to edit the article in wikipedia about what your book says, but if there are a thousand jews who say the opposite, then its a thousand vs one and the thousand jews win.
They have automated correctors and paid jews checking everything is "correct".

Kek but it is you've just lost all grip on reality.

But it IS primarily used by racists/supremacists.

Are you really going to pretend Sup Forums isn't at the very least supremacist?

They really didn't lose though. Lots of progressive journalists resigned and all the websites changed their ethics policies.

Ill actually explain it, being that I followed it.
>Pre Gamergate
Starting around 2011, game media started talking about being "inclusive" and would talk about video games and weighing their merits whether or not they were "misogynistic" or "racist" and would imply people who like certain kinds of game. The open contempt the gaming press had for their readers was palpable.

>Gamergate

At this point, everything just reached a boiling point. Some guy named Eron Gnoji posted a blog about how his girlfriend Zoe Quinn, indie game developer, had cheated on him with Five Guys, each of of them with varying degrees of influence in the games media, but one of them was this guy Nick Grayson. Now, Grayson actually reviewed her game and gave it a glowing recommendation. Grayson worked for Kotaku (which is a company owned by Nick Denton, jewish media mogul that's behind Gawker) and when gamers presented their concerns about conflicts of interest in the gaming media, they were flat out ignored, or antagonized by SJW's accusing them of slut shaming Zoe Quinn, and harassing her. When actor Adam Baldwin retweeted Internet Aristocrats video explaining everything i listed above in more detail he coined the term Gamergate.

So now that the gaming consumers weren't putting up with this shit, what did the gaming press do?
reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2gsslk/is_there_a_list_of_all_the_gamers_are_dead/

On the same day, several different websites posted articles saying "gamers were dead" and that the term gamer needed to be retired to be more "inclusive." Gamergate was then said to be a racist hate group because we were against being "inclusive."
I won't even go into the part Milo contributed, but that shit was fucked.
In they end, they mostly lost. Pic related, most websites that sided with anti-GG ended up like this.

If you want to see the bias with your own eyes, just go look at the "Talk" page in controversial articles and prepare to lose your shit.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, just add Talk: to the beginning of the link after /wiki/:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory

Try metapedia, it's an alternative wikipedia website which is stock full of redpill material regular wikipedia would never allow.
en.metapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

>it's ok to be proud and think your race is the best if you are black
>it isn't ok to be proud and think your race is the best if you are white

Any race that isn't white is allowed to foster pride movements. Whites aren't allowed to do what other races openly do all the time for some reason.

imbecile.

The thing is, almost the opposite happened. When moot sided with the anti-GG crowd (by banning GG discussion in Sup Forums), a lot of oldfags up and left Sup Forums. So only the retards and normies remained.

Nobody said that. Only that the main people who use that term are supremacists.

The swastika is primarily known for being a nazi symbol. What's your point? People only get afraid of whites being proud of their race because deep down they realize they might just be superior.

I'm wikipedia editor and you have to understand it's effectively a propaganda platform. There is so much bias it's unbelievable. I had battle over one particular article addition which another editor clearly didn't like. He kept reverting my addition despite it being fully sourced and completely on topic instead of simply improving it. It was ridiculous. Among other things he consider it fit for deletion was "bad wording" and "unsourced claim" on entry sentence of paragraph which is done to assist readability and always has to be supported by rest of paragraph.

That having said, like all propaganda, volume is most important. If all Sup Forumssters did some spare time editing on their own language wikis, we could change the world. Quality of non-english Wiki is so poor you can gain community positions easily just by sourcing everything rigorously.

> a lot of oldfags up and left Sup Forums. So only the retards and normies remained.
>there are people who actually believe this
Oh boy, oh man

If you read the thread you'd realize my point is you shouldn't get angry about facts like a stupid feminist bitch

The wikipedia article isn't wrong you just don't like it

>People only get afraid of whites being proud of their race because deep down they realize they might just be superior.

This is very true.

Not letting whites be proud of their race implies the superiority of the white race over others.
It's like they don't want the winner gloating in your face about how awesome he is.

What people haven't mentioned in this thread about it was that various places tried to keep the whole thing hush-hush by deleting everything.
Pic related.

>they just cried "sexism" and claimed the basis of it was because they were being criticised, and that she had a vagina
The only thing close to refutation that I saw was that it was her private life and people should butt out of who she sleeps with.
You can argue 'til your face goes blue on where to draw the line on where who's sleeping with who becomes relevant: I'm still not sure whether "sleeping with games journalists for the purpose of getting high scores for your five-minute text game" is significant or not.

I prefer the term Bolschewikipedia.

You know it's bad when they remove your [citation needed] tags when the article is talking about strong womyn in history without any sources.

>implying
I've been on 8ch. By the way the site looked I'd judge it was mostly redditors and 4channers-of-one-year-roleplaying-as-oldfags. The number of actual oldfags was perhaps in the range of 10-20, and I bet most of them have returned here by now.

Prove me wrong.

Note the lack of citations.

The burden of proof is on you, my friend.

Except no one here is getting emotional. People are simply pointing out a very blatant bias.

The article about Fathers says men are not proven to be impregnating women only commit sexual acts.

Yeah those pesky facts and their liberal bias. Hate it.

>You know it's bad when they remove your [citation needed] tags when the article is talking about strong womyn in history without any sources.
Don't do that. Always delete unsourced claims with remark "unsourced claim". Most of the time nobody bothers reverting unsourced claims and if they do, publicly shame them in article discussion by labeling them as trolls.

Wikipedia is great for finding references and generally good at representing more objective topics such as mathematics, but for anything with potential contention you will find teams of editors attempting to skew articles one way or the other. Just check the talk pages/history for a bit of an idea.

Check out the wiki page for White People if you really wanna rage.

Btw guys take a look at article about Schönberg (the composer)

>With the rise of the Nazi Party, by 1938 Schoenberg's works were labelled as degenerate music because he was Jewish (user. 1997–2013)

Yes, his music was denounced not because it was 12 tone serialism, but because he was Jewish. The (user. 1997–2013) is supposed to be a citation, and it points at a "a teacher's curriculum guide, presumably for secondary-level teachers in a US state".

When anyone who is not white is proud of their race it is celebrated and respected.

When whites do it they are supremacist etc.

Can you even celebrate the fact that you are white? Stop being a cuck. And if you aren't white, have you not noticed this?

I never said they went to cripplechan, I'm saying a bunch of people were fed up with moot
The person I was replying to said that a bunch of redditors and normalfags came in as a result of GG. I'm mostly speaking from personal experience but the meme that people came to Sup Forums because of GG is retarded.

moot was right in banning double garbage, it drew unwelcomed attention as well as causing him a lot of legal pain just like thefappening. Striving for a purpose higher than the board's subject is what's retarded.

It's not hard to see why when you consider the kind of person you would have to be in order to excel in the wikipedia bureaucracy.