|
|
|
|
|
by eldavojohn
1810 days ago
|
|
Why don't you quote his article and then the wikipedia "interpretation" that is "very biased"? Let's take concrete examples. I'll start, here's an excerpt from the section in question in Larry Sanger's article: > The rest of the article—which, I confess, I did not read entirely, as it is very long He cares so much about the bias that he can't be bothered to find it. The only thing I saw (and I mentioned in my original post) is that he took issue with the description of statue removal phrasing. So he skips through three long articles, doesn't read them all but finds what he's looking for. This is largely how people operate today, they start with what they want to believe then they go looking for it. |
|
Also to your point: "This is largely how people operate today, they start with what they want to believe then they go looking for it."
If he went looking for it, he certainly found it very easily. I would agree with you if he had found the bias in niche topics and in later sections of articles much less likely to be read. But when the articles with the most traffic and most contributors demonstrate bias, its clear there is a problem.