[shripadk]

More Golden quotes from the Co-Founder of Wikipedia:

"It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one.4 It might be better to embrace a “credibility” policy and admit that their notion of what is credible does, in fact, bias them against conservatism, traditional religiosity, and minority perspectives on science and medicine—to say nothing of many other topics on which Wikipedia has biases.

Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to make any such change; they live in a fantasy world of their own making.5"

So much for neutrality!

Source: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

[JoeAltmaier]

But honestly, without 'bias' unmoderated public forums (fora?) become flooded with 'minority perspectives' e.g. nonsense and conspiracy theories.

[shripadk]

Then don't say that there is no bias. It insults our intelligence when you on the one hand stand for freedom of speech, take grandstanding that there is no bias whatsoever and when it is inconvenient for you say that bias exists and is needed and go ahead to justify it! This isn't freedom of speech by any means. Moderation cannot be denial of freedoms. Moderation can only be with regards to things that are universal. Like not being violent. That applies to both left and right wing. But even there, left-wing social media sites fail miserably. They suspend ring-wing accounts that are abusive (which I am all for) but they don't suspend left-wing accounts that are abusive. Why this double standards?