Exclusive: Experts say changes to Grand Mosque of Shadian mark completion of five-year sinification campaign
    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      5 months ago

      I’ll reserve judgment until I find more information. It could be a good thing, Wikipedia does have problems with editors changing articles, or it could be a bad thing to proliferate misinformation. That’s why I linked the Reuters article.

      Edit: I read through the page on Fascism. It’s crap, runaway.

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          5 months ago

          Someone already showed that the linked article was outdated nonsense almost the minute it was published.

          Where? Everything I’m reading says that most of the new state-level areas are inhabited and not “ghost cities.” Unless Ohio State is wrong.

            • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              5 months ago

              I care about the facts and the truth, not the source, as should you.

              But I notice you ignored all the left-wing sources I provided that demonstrates the new areas in China are populated and not “ghost cities,” so I’m guessing none of this actually matters to you anyway.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
                2·
                5 months ago

                This is what you said which started this conversation:

                I was just reading about it. It’s another web encyclopedia trying to incorporate other encyclopedias to compete against Wikipedia’s biases.

                I showed you that the whole thing is about Wikipedia not having a right-wing bias.

                I thought you cared about facts and truth?

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  11·
                  5 months ago

                  I do. I admitted Justapedia was a biased source:

                  Edit: I read through the [page](https://justapedia.org/wiki/Fascism) on Fascism. It’s crap, runaway.

                  but the references linked were credible.

                  I’ll admit when I’m wrong, will you?

                  Five studies, including two from Harvard researchers, have found a left-wing bias at Wikipedia:

                  • A Harvard study found Wikipedia articles are more left-wing than Encyclopedia Britannica.
                  • Another paper from the same Harvard researchers found left-wing editors are more active and partisan on the site.
                  • A 2018 analysis found top-cited news outlets on Wikipedia are mainly left-wing.
                  • Another analysis using AllSides Media Bias Ratings™ found that pages on American politicians cite mostly left-wing news outlets.
                  • American academics foundconservative editors are 6 times more likely to be sanctioned in Wikipedia policy enforcement. source
                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
                    2·
                    5 months ago

                    When did I say Wikipedia didn’t have a bias? Please quote me.

                    Again, if you care about the truth, you’ll show where I made that claim that you think you’re refuting.