Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) sent a letter to the nonprofit operator of Wikipedia alleging a pattern of liberal bias in articles on the collaborative encyclopedia.
“I write to request information about ideological bias on the Wikipedia platform and at the Wikimedia Foundation,” Cruz wrote to Wikimedia Foundation CEO Maryana Iskander in a letter dated October 3. “Wikipedia began with a noble concept: crowdsource human knowledge using verifiable sources and make it free to the public. That’s what makes reports of Wikipedia’s systemic bias especially troubling.”
Citing research from the conservative Manhattan Institute, Cruz wrote that “researchers have found that articles on the site often reflect a left-wing bias.” Cruz alleged that “bias is particularly evident in Wikipedia’s reliable sources/perennial sources list” because it describes “MSNBC and CNN as ‘generally reliable’ sources, while listing Fox News as a ‘generally unreliable’ source for politics and science. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center gets a top rating, but the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, is a ‘blacklisted’ and ‘deprecated’ source that Wikipedia’s editors have determined ‘promotes disinformation.’”
Ted Cruz thinks we should stop attacking pedophiles
Anything he does from now on is an attempt to distract us from that uncharacteristically candid statement
Cruz alleged that “bias is particularly evident in Wikipedia’s reliable sources/perennial sources list” because it describes “MSNBC and CNN as ‘generally reliable’ sources, while listing Fox News as a ‘generally unreliable’ source for politics and science. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center gets a top rating, but the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, is a ‘blacklisted’ and ‘deprecated’ source that Wikipedia’s editors have determined ‘promotes disinformation.’”
It’s kind of funny how when your goal becomes to present factual information, there aren’t many especially right-leaning sources. I wonder why that might be.
Can you think of why that might be the case, Ted?
I’m not sure ol’ Rafael is capable of thought.
He is very capable of thought. He’s an intelligent and well educated man who puts on a persona to further his own agenda. He is lacking empathy and morals, not thought.
He’s an intelligent and well educated man…
I have yet to see any evidence of that. Everything I’ve heard from him has always been utterly moronic.
He probably took on the mantra of the SubGenius, but for dark purposes: “Act like a dumbshit, and they’ll treat you like an equal”.
I’ve seen Ted Cruz eat his own boogers.
He graduated from Princeton, and Harvard Law School. He is not a stupid person, it’s mostly an act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#Education
That said, conservatism seems to literally damage the brain, so he’s probably gotten dumber over the years.
Little Raffy doesn’t even deserve a cute irreverent nickname. Just another asshole trying to ruin the world
Also, these ding-a-lings keep confusing rather mid corporate news outlets as “liberal”. Also, it’s awfully interesting how butthurt the right is about SPLC, I have to say. They’ve been howling about that one for years. Gosh, I wonder what it is about SPLC that makes them so angry?
Reminds me of how they used to howl about ACORN until they had that little weasel O’Keefe make up a bunch of bullshit about it. Of course, a lot of these little shits have been whining about Wikipedia ever since its inception, since people constantly use it as a way to refute their LIES.
Also, these ding-a-lings keep confusing rather mid corporate news outlets as “liberal”.
This is how you move the Overton window.
It’s arguably true in the traditional sense of “liberal”. But these are the same Republicans who also use “liberal” and “Marxist” interchangeably, so that’s probably not their point.
Ted isn’t confusing anything here, he knows exactly what he is doing.
ACORN
Jesus Christ, things were so quaint back then…
Sorry, yeah, I should have pointed out that the con base are the ones getting confused. The likes of Ted definitely know what they are doing when it comes to this lie.
The point of him making this dumb comparison is to quietly sell the idea to The Stupids that Heritage, Fox and other propaganda places deserve equal consideration as reality.
They need to make their own site. Magapedia? Wokepedia? Pedopedia?
https://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page if you wish to suffer brain rot
Oh, wow. That’s pretty wild.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
It gets really wild when you see what motivated its creation. These people are unbelievably stupid snowflakes.
Schlafly also claimed that Wikipedia’s allowance of both Common Era and Anno Domini notation was anti-Christian bias.
OMG! Using CE for dates!?
/clutches pearls
Also, apparently they don’t teach very goodly at the Eagle Forum University. This guy seemingly has not even had a 101-level course in ethics…
However, some users may object to certain entries, such as that for ‘Atheism’: "Since atheists have no God, as a philosophical framework atheism simply provides no logical basis for any moral standard.
“They live their lives according to the rule that ‘anything goes’. In recent years, this has led to a large rise in crime, drug use, pre-marital sex, teenage pregnancy, pedophilia and bestiality.”
This is the kind of argumentation you’ll hear from complete dumbasses in junior high: “You guyz don’t even believe in my god, so coming from a framework that bears no relevancy outside of accepting that framework on faith, I declare that you have no morals!”
Er, okay then.
It’s been said before but if all that is keeping you from raping and pillaging is fear of an invisible sky daddy then that says far more about you than anybody else.
It’s worse than that, it’s always such a self-report: “the only thing stopping me from doing evil is fear of punishment, so everybody else must be inherently terrible shitheads too!”
The website was established in 2006 by American attorney and activist Andrew Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly,[4][5
I was not aware of this.
The shit apple doesn’t fall far from the shit tree, Rand.
I’ve never diddled a child. I’m such a terrible person!!!
/s
Wikipedia tries so hard to keep all articles factual and free of value judgements, while Conservapedia strives to jam partisan value judgements into every single sentence. Even their article on the Titanic is mainly there to whine about liberals. And conservatives are too stupid to understand the difference.
The Ted Cruz entry isn’t very flattering.
Came here to say this. Brought to you by the son of that witch Phyllis Schlafly.
I think Elon Misk was going to make grokpedia by using ai to redo Wikipedia.
Reality has a left wing bias
while listing Fox News as a ‘generally unreliable’ source for politics and science.
You mean that Fox News that argued it’s an entertainment show that no reasonable person would take seriously?
Is this the same Fox News that had to pay out a $800,000,000 settlement for lying about the 2020 election?
Did they ever pay that? Where’d the money end up?
Left wing bias = says objectively true things about me I don’t like.
This is literally where we are right now.
My MAGA parents told me that they consume news “from both sides”. When pressed to name a single source that they consider on the left, they could not. They didn’t even try to say “CNN” or some shit, they simply could not come up with a single source.
So thankfully, they recognized their irrationality, and are no longer MAGA.
Lol jk 🥲
Reality tends to have a strong left wing bias indeed.
“Wahhhh! They don’t let us lie to you and treat us as reliable sources!”
I can’t stand these scum…
Reality has a liberal bias
I recently looked into this on another forum where someone shared some articles supposedly proving bias. One article was itself highly biased to the right, so not particularly credible.
The other article, from an organization that ranked the bias of news sources, was very neutral and objective, took accusations of bias seriously, went into detail, and removed the “unbiased” classification from Wikipedia, but didn’t conclude any provable bias, leaving it unranked. The best example of bias they had was the fact that articles on socialism and communism didn’t list Soviet atrocities, but those atrocities have their own pages and are also mentioned on pages of the countries involved, so that was not a great example.
All these accusations are just the result of a massive right-wing campaign against facts and reality-based reporting. Everything that doesn’t follow their propaganda is biased, according to them.
That’s what you get when you build your whole worldview and political platform on feelings instead of provable facts.
What is what you get? Complete control over what was previously considered the wealthiest, most powerful nation on the planet?
The Wikipedia page for Capitalism also doesn’t have any atrocities in my quick check; the “criticism” section is fairly short and tame. Somehow though I’m sure this doesn’t bother conservatives.
And to act like communism can only exist in a soviet context is just ridiculous. Like you said, the atrocities are very real and have their own pages because they’re not really so directly connected to communism. We shouldn’t lump every nasty thing the US has done into the capitalism page, either.
God, I just wish for once conservatives would have a thought that was even vaguely consistent across their worldview but in the end all we get is record-breaking hypocrisy and twisted feelings over any kind of sense.
Everything that doesn’t follow their propaganda is biased, according to them.
This is really what it comes down to.
If reality is left of you, maybe your position is far too right?
No it’s obviously reality that’s to blame!
Attacking Wikipedia can not be normalized, we must protect it.
How long has Wikipedia been around? Looks like since 2001. I think their stupid attacks go back that far. I’m sure they’d love to use the battering ram of a compliant moron like Taco + the force of government to shut them down, though.
Just like they are attacking universities, law firms, science, the media, comedy…
There are mirrors
The organization that runs it, Wikimedia Foundation, needs to be protected though. That’s based in the USA and has 363 employees. Hosting the content isn’t the hard part.
Yes I agree with you but… Mirrors ensure that others can lick up the ball somewhere else
Wikimedia is awesome though
Maybe they should move to Sweden or something.
You mean Rafael Cruz, who uses the chosen first name of Ted?
That’s a mighty deportable first name. Would be a shame if people reported him to ice until they managed to find someone so ignorant they try to arrest him.
Apparently things like truth and reality are left wing now. Good luck with that, psychotic ultra right wingers.
Do not treat this as just a tantrum. It’s the right’s playbook of moving the overton window to the right by taking extreme positions and invoking the golden mean fallacy. It certainly has worked on MSM.
Repeat after me, Die Mad About It. The sooner the better.
