[pera]

> The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject. Another example is how Wikipedia treats various topics in alternative medicine—often dismissively, and frequently labeled as “pseudoscience” in Wikipedia’s own voice. [...]

Yeah I'm OK with Wikipedia being biased against misinformation.

[sleepysysadmin]

>Yeah I'm OK with Wikipedia being biased against misinformation.

Early in the pandemic, a conspiracy theory emerged that the virus had been bio-engineered by China at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. One early source of this theory was former Israeli secret service officer Dany Shoham, who gave an interview to The Washington Times regarding the lab.[28][29] Later, US politicians began propagating the idea, including Senator Tom Cotton, President Donald Trump, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.[29] One scientist from Hong Kong, Li-Meng Yan, fled China and supported the idea. Many authorities debunked the conspiracy theory, including American biologist Richard Ebright, NIAID director Anthony Fauci, prominent scientists, and the US intelligence community.[29][failed verification] The conspiracy theory spread widely on social media, but subsequent scientific investigation showed that the virus originated in bats.[25]

So you agree with Wikipedia being biased against the misinformation of the lab leak? You're even fine with them asserting it's a conspiracy theory and shutting down conversation about the possibility?

[satronaut]

the lab leak hasn't been disproven yet. There was a senate investigation that biden killed (https://nypost.com/2021/05/25/biden-team-shut-down-inquiry-t...) Why he cancelled it, who's to say, but it COULD be something to do with this; https://nypost.com/2021/11/29/joe-biden-expected-10-percent-...

and the senate minority concluded that it was a lab leak; https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/2/house-gop-re...

[sleepysysadmin]

>the lab leak hasn't been disproven yet.

I was kind of unclear here intentionally. The source being wild has been disproven. This leaves lab leak as the only viable theory. So while it hasnt been proven, it sure as hell is the current theory.

The point I was making is that the political position set by wikipedia proves the bias. If they reported in a neutral fashion they would have NEVER called it a conspiracy theory. They might have said that we lack the evidence of it being a lab leak and wild source is quite likely over lab leak.

The bias is proven though and then the person I replied to was alright with them ignoring 'misinformation' but this is tantamount to agreeing with the bias.

>There was a senate investigation that biden killed (https://nypost.com/2021/05/25/biden-team-shut-down-inquiry-t...) Why he cancelled it, who's to say, but it COULD be something to do with this; https://nypost.com/2021/11/29/joe-biden-expected-10-percent-...

If you step back, early in the covid lab leak story is that the lead scientists from said wuhan lab published in nature mag the source appears to be bat. Afterall, it is indeed quite related. I believe what this says is that it wasn't an intention leak, they just didn't think they did it.

The follow up theory is that it was intention but not by them. Intentional by someone who was actively in a cold war with china... who might that be... oh right...

[satronaut]

Were you aware the the WHO and eco-health were strong-arming scientists to agree with the natural origin? This story got memory-holed but it happened

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/peter-daszak-should-...