Wikipedia is overall excellent, and it has certainly brought enormous value to me throughout the years.
But it is noticeably biased on any topic that has political implications.
But it is noticeably biased on any topic that has political implications.
Which was why I just wanted to point out that while I think Wikipedia is a net good overall, it is not without blemishes.
> Is asked for evidence.
> Refuses.
Brilliant work. These kinds of posts should be bannable.
The point is that accusations of "noticeable bias on any topic that has political implications" is the kind of accusation made by someone simply trying to sow distrust in information, writ large. It's increasingly common.
Being asked for an example or two isn't weird.
It's about larger patterns, which things are talked about and (crucially) which are not. How much attention is given to things and not.
Or read some of the more critical viewpoints against the Wikipedia editor bureaucracy (that shields itself with a laughable "Anybody can edit Wikipedia! We don't exist! Don't look at the man behind the curtain") like https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik...
Small aside, it's a fun coincidence I (finally!) saw Brazil for the first time a week ago...
Just looking at the front page of PinkNews, the content appears sourced and factual. A media being oriented (LGBT in this case) doesn’t necessarily mean it’s biased or lying. Taking this article as an example[1], I see no reason why it shouldn’t be used as a Wikipedia source.
[1]: https://www.thepinknews.com/2026/01/16/trump-eliminates-rape...
The bias is that: how do you handle the fact that any man could claim to be a woman and be housed with women? Especially when the issue is compounded by those numbers on rape they're reporting? Do you build special quarters in every prison? For the 47 individuals in 50~70k detainees? Be realistic and have a more balanced view of the matter.
I think the "bias blindness" of WP is a weapon selectively applied to one side and should be removed in favour of sources that at least pretend neutrality. The problem is obviously that you almost have no source left, then; at least in the political/ideological domain.
Does it happen? What’s wrong with handling it on a case by case basis? Is "some men could lie" more important than "incarcerating trans females with men will get them raped"? I’m assuming real trans people can be detected pretty easily: do they look like the opposite gender? Are they on HRT (boobs on men and beard on women are pretty clear giveaways that they’re actually trans)? Did they present as the opposite gender before being incarcerated?
> Do you build special quarters in every prison? For the 47 individuals in 50~70k detainees?
I don’t know, what’s wrong with debating it? Is it that weird to think some population should get a different treatment if they’re wayyy more at risk of getting raped, or worse?
Sounds to me like "a bias towards humanity" is unacceptable
For example, look up Tremaine Carroll and Karen White. Both of them men who claimed to be women, were transferred to women's prisons based on policy that allows "gender identity" to override sex, then raped and sexually assaulted female prisoners who were locked up with them.
The whole reason we have sex-segregated prisons is to prevent imprisoned women from being subjected to male predation and violence. Letting men into women's prisons because these men claim to be women completely undermines this.