Is Wikipedia politically biased? You tell me

[BULLDOG]

Have your wife get your affairs in order.

Aww Mikey. I've already told you that you can blow me, but that's as far as it will ever go. I will not leave my lady friend for you ever. Quit asking.

 

[alang1216]

Here is what it says about McCarthy (biog)

After Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, McCarthy supported Trump's false denial of Biden's victory and participated in efforts to overturn the results,[7][8] and while he condemned the January 6 United States Capitol attack in its immediate aftermath, blaming Trump for the riot and saying the 2020 election was legitimate,[9][10] he would later walk back these comments and reconcile with Trump.

Kevin McCarthy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bias? What bias?

Here come the liberals saying I'm crazy (like all conservatives)

Of course. It is well known that facts are Left-leaning.

 

[BlackSand]

I edit Wikipedia all of the time.

But across a broad range of topical content.

A lot of the pages for public figures, particularly politicians, are largely maintained by their supporters/special interest doners and staffers. So take that for what it's worth.

.

Wikipedia is just a place of compiled information ... And people often don't realize how providing certain pieces of information ...
Factual information ... And not providing other factual information ... Can shape opinion, not based in the entirety of all the facts.

In a broader sense ... It can be seen now in the media ... As a desire to move further from responsible journalism towards commentary ...
And regardless of who is doing it, or why.

.​

 

[BULLDOG]

That is NOT true.. whether you are knowingly lying or not is for God to know and for us to assume

But that is not true.

Maybe you should read the book Rigged and then come back and tell us something...

I'm sure it's just as credible as that silly mules book.

 

[BULLDOG]

What is the factual standard for irregularities to amount to a stolen election?

Out of the millions that voted, a hand full of irregularities isn't enough. A lot of what you crazies claim are irregularities is just made up shit.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Wiki is available for anyone to edit. In a debate about Joe McCarthy, I had someone cite a wiki article about Joe as fact. I edited it to say that McCarthy collaborated with Nixon to write a cookbook. That edit stayed for a long time, several months at least. Someone edited it to say "nonsense" but it stayed.

I just tried it again to see if that is still the case:

The part about being elected pope is not real, BTW.

Joseph McCarthy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Be interesting to see how long that stays.

Whoops! It's gone now already. I guess with the Pandemic, there are plenty of basement-dwelling fact checkers available.

 

[Natural Citizen]

.

Wikipedia is just a place of compiled information ... And people often don't realize how providing certain pieces of information ...
Factual information ... And not providing other factual information ... Can shape opinion, not based in the entirety of all the facts.

In a broader sense ... It can be seen now in the media ... As a desire to move further from responsible journalism towards commentary ...
And regardless of who is doing it, or why.

.​

Yep. You're correct about that.

As to the page in question there in the OP, I looked, it's locked ''due to page vandalism'' and I guess nobody's fixed it yet.

And, of course, ''page vandalism'' happens for the precise reasons that you state. To shape opinion, if only temporarily, while something or someone may be a so-called hot topic in cable news entertainment at a given moment in time.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Out of the millions that voted, a hand full of irregularities isn't enough. A lot of what you crazies claim are irregularities is just made up shit.

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

It isn't factual, and you aren't entitled to pretend that it is.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

It isn't factual, and you aren't entitled to pretend that it is.

So what is your standard?

 

[BlackSand]

Yep. You're correct about that.

As to the page in question there in the OP, I looked, it's locked ''due to page vandalism'' and I guess nobody's fixed it yet.

And, of course, ''page vandalism'' happens for the precise reasons that you state. To shape opinion, if only temporarily, while something or someone may be a so-called hot topic in cable news entertainment at a given moment in time.

.

Perhaps I am just pining away for the days when people used to ask questions ...
Weren't satisfied with what others were willing to shove down their throats.

It's a lot harder now ... You can go online and find someone to agree with you ... No matter what you think ...
Chances are someone did some study ... And if all you are looking for is validation ...
Just get in line and hold out your bowl ... Someone will fill it.

.​

 

[miketx]

Aww Mikey. I've already told you that you can blow me, but that's as far as it will ever go. I will not leave my lady friend for you ever. Quit asking.

Eat shit.

 

[BULLDOG]

Eat shit.

You said nobody could piss you off. YOU LIAR!!!

 

[Natural Citizen]

.

Perhaps I am just pining away for the days when people used to ask questions ...
Weren't satisfied with what others were willing to shove down their throats.

It's a lot harder now ... You can go online and find someone to agree with you ... No matter what you think ...
Chances are someone did some study ... And if all you are looking for is validation ...
Just get in line and hold out your bowl ... Someone will fill it.

.​

Actual discussion where contributing and comparing ideas for some common purpose of learning or better understanding something in some semblance of synergy is almost an art these days.

Takes patience, for sure.

Too often today, it's always about winning something. But what?

 

[BlackSand]

Actual discussion where contributing and comparing ideas for some common purpose of learning or better understanding something in some semblance of synergy is almost an art these days.

.

Asking questions for the common purpose of learning or better understanding something ...
Used to be one of the primary reasons you sent your kids to college ...

They learned how to think ... Not necessarily just what to think.

.​

 

[francoHFW]

Just as soon as you show us where the right cheated.

Trying to overturn an election based on total lies about election fraud, it sure as heck is not about the vote counting,,,,

 

[Lesh]

Would you say that there were absolutely no irregularities in the 2020 election?

If you were to say that, that would be a factual statement, that would either be true or false. If it were false, but you believed it was true, that would not be a lie. If false, and you knew it to be false, that would be a lie.

If you would say that there were, or may have been irregularities, but not enough to invalidate the election, that would be opinion. If I said that you were lying for giving an opinion I disagreed with, I would look as foolish as people who keep saying that Trump is lying when he says the election was stolen.

There are small “irregularities” in every election. That doesn’t mean that the election was stolen or that these irregularities affected the outcome

 

[francoHFW]

So Hillary fabricating the Russian collusion counts by your standard.

While the Russians did a hell of a lot supporting trump, and he did tell them to go ahead and hack Hillary in public and they almost immediately did start it....

 

[Seymour Flops]

So what is your standard?

I don't have a factual standard for what rises to the level of "stolen," because there is none.

There are facts though. One is that the procedures for elections were changed in several states in violation of elections laws passed by legislators to whom the constitution gives the power to decide how elections are run:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

There is nothing there about county executives changing the rules passed by lawmakers, nor about judges making "emergency" decisions that election laws can't be followed, so we won't. But the fact is that those rules were changed.

My opinion is that the changes made cheating easier, and that much more cheating than usual happened.

Another fact is that the state legislatures, well aware of all the suspected cheating and well aware that their laws had been violated by election procedure changes, certified the results anyway. They had the consitutional power to do so, and they had the power to choose not to certify their results. They chose to certify.

It is my opinion that the election was not "stolen," but that it was not an authentic expression of the will of the voters either. Others look at those same facts and have the opinion that it was "stolen."

Calling opinion a lie, is incorrect.

 

[francoHFW]

There are small “irregularities” in every election. That doesn’t mean that the election was stolen or that these irregularities affected the outcome

I don't know what you mean by that really. I don't think there were any irregularities that had any effect on the vote count.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There are small “irregularities” in every election. That doesn’t mean that the election was stolen or that these irregularities affected the outcome

That is your opinion. I don't call it a "lie" because I disagree with it. See the difference?

Maybe y'all really don't get it. I thought youse were clowning.