| > So to continue the earlier analogy of Brazil, if my ignorant self read that a Brazilian company provided private health insurance, I wouldn't be able to tell whether this was a 'nice extra to have' on top of state support like it is here, or an absolutely vital service like in the USA. Only you can: > "GM, for instance, at one time picked up the entire cost of funding health insurance premiums of its employees, their survivors and GM retirees" Implies the employees et al are paying part or all of the premiums themselves in the alternative. > "private health insurance" Implies they get public health insurance in the alternative. > It's a biased statement by its wording, but the facts are all there and accurate. I think I like that aspect of Wikipedia - yes, there is editorial bias, but it can only exist around the fringes of the facts; conjecture is strictly banned. Selection bias is all you need to control the world though. > In my experience, plenty of newspapers indulge in conjecture as well as editorial bias; being primary sources doesn't fully redeem them for this. Newspapers are notoriously biased. See Yellow Journalism etc. It's the same practice and the same problem -- a lie of omission is a type of lie, not a type of honesty. They'd like to lie, but don't want to get caught in a lie or sued for libel, so they lead you down the garden path. "Technically Correct: The Best Kind of Correct." Because that's how you get away with something. But getting away with something isn't neutrality, it's the system having a bias in your favor. |