[sambeau]

Wikipedia is a global resource, edited by educated—often academic—people all over the world. Why would anyone expect it to conform to the US idea of what is left and right? For most of Europe the American Democrats are to the right of their mainstream right-wing parties.

There is no bias to the left. The USA has shifted so far to the right that balance now looks leftist.

[beardyw]

Yes, it makes me despair that we in more tolerant societies may need to break away if things get too bad.

[qcnguy]

There is huge bias to the left. Wikipedia outright bans right wing sources from being used as citations, including non-US sources like the Daily Mail, so it's not true that it's something to do with US bias.

This isn't due to a quality problem. Daily Mail articles are usually highly accurate and they publish voluminously. It's because leftists on Wikipedia ban conservatives as part of their relentless ideological war, as they do in every other context.

[defrost]

> Daily Mail articles are usually highly accurate ...

Six decades of personal exposure to The Daily Mail and UK tabloid gutter press says otherwise.

Leaving aside its questionable history as a paper founded by an admirer of Mussolini and a supporter of Nazi Germany, its questionable present having remained in ownership by family within which the apples remained firmly attached to the tree, The Daily Heil has a business model predicated upon clickbait, outrage, deliberately misleading and emotionally loaded falsehoods and the entire gantlet of fake news predating modern social media, mobile devices, the world wide web, and the internet.

eg: Woman, 63, 'becomes PREGNANT in the mouth' with baby squid after eating calamari (2012)

~ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2159692/Woma...

I question whether in fact you've read the rag in question, your comment has the hallmark of deliberate trolling.

[qcnguy]

Congrats on being an excellent example of why leftists should never be allowed anywhere near anything important, especially not Wikipedia.

You could have cited ANY story from the long history of the Daily Mail to demonstrate some kind of inaccuracy. It would have been only a single data point and not that useful, but you could have done it. But like always with this claim by the left, you picked a story that is fully accurate. In fact it's just a retelling of a medical case report written by doctors:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21834723/

There's nothing inaccurate in the Daily Mail's coverage of this story.

Instead:

- You reacted to the headline for dumb aesthetic reasons

- You made assumptions instead of checking

- You engaged in nonsensical ad hominem attacks. The New York Times famously ran interference for Stalin. Do you consider that questionable history to disqualify all NYT coverage for Wikipedia too?

Your response is a perfect encapsulation of the problem that Wikipedians have. Like all leftists you aren't actually concerned about accuracy, you just hate any news source not controlled by your ideological allies, and want to censor them all out of existence.