Grokipedia only exists so that Elon can look at in his free time a smirk every time he sees something he agrees with.
Lolllllllllllll
The article says Wikipedia has a bias, so I clicked the link it gives and:
Wikipedia’s content is written and maintained by volunteers who can only cite material that already exists in other published sources, since the platform prohibits original research. This rule, which is designed to ensure that facts can be verified, means that Wikipedia’s coverage inevitably reflects the biases of the media, academia and other institutions it draws from.
This is not limited to political bias. For example, research has repeatedly shown a significant gender imbalance among editors, with around 80%–90% identifying as male in the English-language version.
Because most of the secondary sources used by editors are also historically authored by men, Wikipedia tends to reflect a narrower view of the world, a repository of men’s knowledge rather than a balanced record of human knowledge.
I’m curious what the gender breakdown is in other languages, particularly those corresponding to cultures where women are more prevalent in STEM fields.
research has repeatedly shown a significant gender imbalance among editors, with around 80%–90% identifying as male in the English-language version.
That problem would seem to have an obvious and straightforward solution.
…what would that be? how do you encourage women to volunteer to edit wikipedia?
Forced sex change for 30% - 40% of Wikipedia editors, duh
Why can’t they encourage themselves? Women aren’t helpless maidens in distress who need men to save them from every problem.
Sounds like you’ve identified why there isn’t a simple solution.
Same reason there isn’t often a simple solution to equal representation in anything. Maybe women aren’t interested because they don’t know about it, because they don’t feel welcome or because they aren’t interested. But maybe they aren’t interested because they were raised in a society that didn’t encourage women to do that kind of thing with their time.
Generating a truely equal experience so that everyone feels able to explore whatever they want with their time is very hard and will probably never be achieved but encouraging under represented groups can help overcome societal biases and barriers.
news at 12
Hm? Oh. Uh, yeah, um, shocked.
So Wikipedia
Post your favorite thing Wikipedia is wrong about.
They can’t; I already fixed it.
What’s wrong in that article?
Besides the blatant propaganda
MEMO is financed by the State of Qatar.
The references provided do absolutely nothing to prove this.
Reference 15 mentions this:
Likewise, Qatari funding is understood to support a constellation of international electronic media, such as Arabi Post, Arabi 21, and the Middle East Monitor to name just a few.
Technically the reference doesn’t provide evidence for it, but Wikipedia aren’t the arbiters of evidence or truth. They cite reputable sources, and if they conflict then they either mention that there are conflicting sources or in extreme cases pass a judgement on which is considered the more reliable source.
The source says it’s true, so that’s what Wikipedia followed.
“Is understood” is not evidence. In fact when disproven the source can easily claim that they were not certain about the claim either but simply “understood” it. There is no reason this one random person writing a line in their book is evidence for it.
Also, look at the Wikipedia entry in its enitirety. It is very obviously written by a Zionist trying to smear MEMO for being critical of Israel and grasping at any straw it can find. Calling MEMO “Hamas” in the intro without evidence, and other false smears to discredit MEMO.
And somehow, the page is edit protected. It is one of the most blatant examples of how Wikipedia is a biased and racist source.
