[Mathnerd314]

> unbiased factual reporting

I don't think that has ever existed, but the closest I've found is Wikipedia. It is surprisingly detailed, particularly on current events.

[basil-rash]

For mainstream folks, perhaps. The second you even go slightly outside of what the media has declared kosher it goes off the rails. Take RFK’s page, for instance, which is just a collection of inflamed opinions soured from “reputable“ news outlets.

[3np]

It can get polarized within the mainstream, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_br...

[internetter]

In your opinion, what is some misinformation on RFK's page?

Have you read the discussions on the talk page?

If your concern has not been extensively discussed, have you raised it on said page?

Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.

[basil-rash]

Yes, the top chain in the talk page is exactly what I’m referring. And, as expected, the fair critique of the article for violating wiki guidelines has been shot down by passionate editors who want to push their narrative.

[notsureifsrs]

I'm confused. All I saw was someone trying to push their own agenda, and editors preventing it. Did you see something else?

[qnleigh]

Funny you mention that. I've been experimenting with reading only Wikipedia as my source for news. I agree it seems to be an excellent source.

What I can't figure out is how it seems to still be so neutral, given that it's completely open for anyone to edit. Seems like it would be quite cheap for an organization to edit things to their liking.

Is it simply that most people don't get their news from Wikipedia, and so it's not a primary target for manipulation? Is it already awash in self-serving content and I just haven't noticed?

[Viliam1234]

You might enjoy this story: https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik...

The short version is that you can make Wikipedia report the way you want, but you need to be strategic about it. Wikipedia reports information from "reliable sources", so instead of editing the information directly, you need to insist that the sources that agree with you are reliable and the sources that don't agree with you are unreliable. If you succeed at this, then getting the information you want into Wikipedia is just straightforward following of Wikipedia's written policy.

[moi2388]

You find? I usually find it more and more edited to favour left-wing and work views on current and political events.

I just go to severs social media sites so I get at least both biases

[internetter]

Wikipedia is free for everyone to edit. The policies are strongly aligned with the pursuit of truth. Both parties can have truths in their favour, if editors are in a left wing bubble they may just be more exposed to truths from a left perspective. Here's where you can help! If you identify bias, feel free to remove charged language, and add new ideas with reliable citations. Here's a list of sources considered reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2...

Extensive discussions of the decision making process for each source is documented in this list.

[moi2388]

Well, I try, but I’m never allowed to edit anything, even though I add sources, so no idea what’s happening there.

[notsureifsrs]

There's always Conservapedia if Wikipedia isn't working for you!