Re:School vs. Wikipedia
by IncRnd on Friday October 07, 2022 @03:24PM
(#33125788)
I'm glad you posted that information, because it really shows that random online information can often be wrong or conflict with other online authorities. Here are two quotes from an article that was posted 10 years after your link. [1]
and later in that article
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/...
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:School vs. Wikipedia
by TrinaryWorksToo on Friday October 07, 2022 @03:40PM
(#33125979)
Bias is not the same thing as being correct or incorrect.
> code words
I'm not sure that's a great measure of bias. It's easy to write in an unbiased tone, yet still be biased.
Further, unbiased articles may easily contain biased words. Especially since Wikipedia is an international projects, the articles describe multiple points of view, and the "code words" of the research were terms such as the following: "tax breaks, minimum wage, fuel efficiency [--] death tax, border security, war on terror".
Re:School vs. Wikipedia
by jcampbell1 on Saturday October 08, 2022 @03:55AM
(#33130605)
That is some seriously selective quoting. The next sentence says the code word count is due to Wikipedia having longer articles.
That some false paraphrasing. No it does not say that in the next sentence.
However, you just made my point, which is that, "random online information can often be wrong or conflict with other online authorities."