[bad_username]

> so much so that there's a wikipedia page dedicated to the falsehoods

Not detracting from the merits of your statement, but Wikipedia is not neutral, it is biased politically/ideologically, so it should not be used as a fair "measure" of things.

[tbossanova]

Literally every information source has biases. We are human after all. Well, most of us. If you reject Wikipedia on this you basically have to reject everything anyone says, ever

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

It's rejecting Wikipedia strictly as a means to measure who lies more; even discounting ideological bias, I'm sure other people who are less scrutinized and publicized tell just as many, if not more, lies. They wouldn't have a Wikipedia page because relatively few people will care to read about Joe Nobody telling his wife that he was at a friend's house after he gets back from the strip club.

With respect to ideological bias, I strongly doubt that other Presidents never made "false or misleading statements" but I can't seem to find, for example, the page of "False or misleading statements made by Joe Biden". It seems a stretch to say he made none, to the point one might wonder about the discrepancy.

[fifilura]

That is whataboutism just there.

Why is there no wikipedia page about basketball points scored by Lionel Messi?

I bet he made some in his life?

[radiorick]

Wikipedia is one of the more neutral point-of-view sources on the internet these days given its wide range of editors and consensus process.

Calling it biased/ideological is a recent trend pushed by certain billionaires who didn't like their DOGE corruption being exposed.

[orbital-decay]

There's nothing recent about the most popular media being manipulated and/or biased. Discussions on this forum date back two decades, however the specific narrative depends on the context.