Comments by "Pob" (@goodlookinouthomie1757) on "Logically Answered" channel.

@heartsofiron4ever The problem is my friend, even what you call a "NPOV" is highly subjective. I know of pages, particularly pertaining to political and cultural public figures, that would be entirely overhauled if it were a case of crowdsourcing the opinions therein - but any edits are almost immediately reverted, suggesting that one motivated individual is gatekeeping their own personal biases.
8
Wikipedia is fantastic if you want to find out the boiling point of mercury or how many goals Lionel Messi scored in his 2014 season. But for political stuff it's best to read it in the same way that you read the Guardian. Mostly correct but with a strong bias to the left/progressive/Democrat.
6
@oo--7714 When asked about Wikipedia bias, one of the company's founders, Larry Sanger, stated: "In some fields and some topics, there are groups who 'squat' on articles and insist on making them reflect their own specific biases. There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles."
5
@quokka_yt Oh sweet summer child. Have you tried this? You may as well not bother. There are dedicated activists gatekeeping certain political issues and you will simply be banned for mounting any kind of debate about it.
2
@Bustermachine Well... only usually in one direction.
1
Why is it that normal conservative media creators are viciously smeared as racists, white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and anti-semites on their wikipedia pages?
1
"Your source for reliable and unbiased medical news... Sponsored by Pfizer".
1