Hacker News Reader

Comment by daniel-thompson | Hacker News Reader

> It's hard to find articles written from a neutral point of view on English version on Wikipedia.

The articles on stuff other than politics and political figures tend to be pretty neutral.

That's what it's still somewhat good for. I mostly use it to read about random history stuff I'm interested like medieval Europe etc. but avoid it completely for anything contemporary because it always has incredibly left-leaning bias.

I'm thinking of just getting a subscription for a real encyclopedia though because Wikipedia is often rather low quality in my opinion.

Medieval history is often caricaturish as taught in school. I would not presume Wikipedia is free from the influence of centuries of Protestant and Enlightenment smears.

> Incredibly left-leaning bias

Read: fact-leaning bias

If the facts support leftism, you should be strongly in favour of a completely neutral retelling of the facts and let reality speak for itself.

Which I am. As is implicit in my comment, for those informed enough to interpret it accurately.

But when articles written about right-leaning figures are filled with condemnation instead of dry facts, while articles about left-leaning figures are laudatory instead of drily factual, it creates the opposite effect.

> Are we the baddies?

I'm not talking about Nazis, just like how I'm also not talking about Marxists. I'm talking about Western politicians within the current Overton window.

>Read: fact-leaning bias

That is if you redefine what the words 'fact' or 'fact-checking' mean in the style of Orwellian newspeak.

Actually, no. Nice try, though!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com