What will happen to Wikipedia in the far future?

Wow, I was thinking the commies would not appear.

No there is a clear bias reflected in the info they publish and there is a constant internal struggle with editors trying to push their own agenda.

Believing that climate change is real and not believing in literal interpretations of the Bible is communist?

Well, I see why you think that mods rejecting your edits are "anti-right" and "pro-left" then:
You bring politics into everything and label facts that don't suit you "communist".

How do you know that there is a bias that materializes systematically and significantly, and how does it differ from other platforms?

Also, isn't there a huge overlap between mods and editors that edit much (independent of moddery)?

More like because the moderation approved pages of relatively right wing philosophers and political theorists read like nonciclopedia articles. Just take a look at Evola's english page, it's a fucking disgrace.

Someone talk about bias and you say, bible interpretation and climate changes, is kind hard have a decent discussion with people like you around.

I don't get what you're trying to say. Partially, because that's not a correct English sentence, partially because it wouldn't make sense even if it was.

Please define what you mean by "bias".

I think you're trying to say that everything there is a consensus about that fits into people other than the Right's ideology is "communist".

Are physicists communists because they believe that gravity exist?
Are theologians communists because most of them don't believe in literal interpretations of the Bible?
Are biologists communists because they believe that evolution is real?

Servers cost money, wikipedia doesn't make any (without donations)

No, but believe that be against left, is be a religious moron that is against science is be a commie.

I think it would help if you offered some specific examples of the anti-right-wing bias that you speak of. Really, both leftism and rightism are for the most part mental illnesses, so both a left wing bias and a right wing bias would be equally wrong.

Just shut up man. I don't feel like explaining this. Wikipedia is run by a bunch of braindead libera SJWs. That's all you need to know

>my opinion is fact
>that's all you need to know
Go back to /pol/, faggot.

Then reality and research has a liberal bias

A factual claim is worthless if you don't know what it's grounded on, because it's easy to make but rarely corresponds to the truth.

Factual sociological claims in particular need a high standard of evidence, because perceptions of sociological phenomena are so subject to our biases.

If you aren't ready to post proper arguments, just don't post at all. Makes no difference either way, because baseless claims are worthless.

>Factual sociological claims in particular need a high standard of evidence, because perceptions of sociological phenomena are so subject to our biases.
You made choke from laugh.

Climate Change is objectively real and completely devoid of significant human influence. There are no direct links and absolutely NO effective predictive models. Knowing this and then having the media go "98% of all smart science mans agree that we are going to blow up the world with coal mines by 2020!!!" is silly.

We just want some specific examples, for fuck's sake. I mean, do what you want, but if you want to convince anybody you have to give us something.

ug ug

It was a normative statement...

You all realize Wikipedia is officially Randian, don't you?

[citation needed]

No, things like how they treat transgenderism (there is no article titled "Bruce Jenner"), race (compare the articles "White Pride", "Black Pride", "Asian Pride", etc.), Islam (plenty of articles about Catholic pedophilia but none about Muslim pedophilia), etc.

Not him, but Jimbo is officially nuts. He even named his daughter after a character from one of Rand's novels.

>(compare the articles "White Pride", "Black Pride", "Asian Pride", etc.)

Does this really surprise you? That black pride is treated differently than white pride? I mean seriously

Don't loss your time, they have learned things from sites that used Wikipedia, even if you put truth n they front, they will refuse to see it.

Jimbo is definitely nuts, yeah.
He's also utterly incoherent in his political leanings, so I wouldn't use him to judge wikipedia's biases.

>(there is no article titled "Bruce Jenner")
The name redirects to an article about her under the name she is now using, which also makes sense. You wouldn't even use original names for artists.

>race (compare the articles "White Pride", "Black Pride", "Asian Pride", etc.),
The English (there are only articles for 4 languages) article for "black pride" had a grand total of 8 editors changing not even 20 bytes average per person this year.

Absolutely nobody gives a fuck about this, other than you.

>Islam (plenty of articles about Catholic pedophilia but none about Muslim pedophilia), e
The vast majority of editors are Western that have grown up in a Christian-dominated society. Naturally, they'll rather create articles about things that actually pertain them.

>there is no article titled "Bruce Jenner"
He has legally changed his name and it makes little sense to have multiple articles about one person, so I don't really see a problem with that one. If you want to argue that they're biased towards LGBT community, you need to do better than that.

>commies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
this article has been fully protected for years because of leftist butthurt, i don't think wikipedia is communist

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi
>No articles on Muslim pedophilia
Everything else is right doe

>wikipedia telling me a cup of fucking coffee costs ten whole burgerbucks

Nice try jews.

>Servers cost money, wikipedia doesn't make any (without donations)

Moron, anyone can download the entirety of Wikipedia right now, even if 'Wikipedia' dies due to lack of funds. Anybody can start it back up

>No, things like how they treat transgenderism (there is no article titled "Bruce Jenner"), race (compare the articles "White Pride", "Black Pride", "Asian Pride", etc.), Islam (plenty of articles about Catholic pedophilia but none about Muslim pedophilia), etc.

Then make an account and write an article backed up with sources, moron.

>this is what SJWs actually believe

frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle

Why are you SJWs always wrong?

>Her

>research has a liberal bias
>implying it doesn't

Lmao. Lefties and commies say that as well. Pretty sure you don't even check the edit wars that happened in Communism and Naxallites articles.

This. Let's be honest and admit that historically they've been radically different overall.

I've always despised the concept of any sort of racial pride but the outcomes have been different for each over time.

Their LGBT pages are awful. They'll make a new page for every new gender tumblr makes up.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)

>all these assblasted liberals

>HURR HES NOT NOTABLE HE SHOULD BE DELETED I SWEAR HE DOESNT BOTHER ME!!1111

Their page on asexuality is hilariously tumblr now.

I've noticed that too. The male and female articles have had their definitions altered to include trannies.

>all these
>pretty much every comment is supporting keeping the article

wow fukken liberals amirite???

what, you expect him to read his sources before posting? fucking reptilian

>reality has a liberal bias

this is a really great retard detector btw