Political bias in Wikipedia (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, June 24, 2012, 15:52 (4534 days ago) @ romansh

Thanks Mark, I just wanted to check that you did not mean a bias away from some absolute truth.
> > I guess I'm confused by why you're even asking me for *my* take on political bias. 
> >....
> > so as to avoid a strawman? Importantly, do they acknowledge their bias?
> >Bias is unconscious for most of us, but thankfully there's other people to catch it.
> >I'm still puzzled as to why you care about my views in all of this, but that's about it.
> You seem to mean by bias that the information and opinion supplied by a disproportionately large number of tech savvy "liberals" - am I correct?
> 
> There are a few questions with this - what do you suggest?
> 
> I like the BBC as well as a news source. But it does get accused of being liberal. Journalists tend to be left leaning too.-You need to be more specific about *which* part of my posts you take issue with! I can understand more about this objection on this go-around.-In the american political demography, it's common for many people who were liberal become less so over time. It's pretty rare for young idealists to be conservative and young, so to speak. -My point is that since wikipedia came out, you are guaranteed to get a much younger, hence statistically more liberal slants on articles. Even my own generation (age 32) are a little less likely to jump on technological trends. That trend follows a power law as you move through generations. -More right-leaning articles are appearing both as some young liberals start leaning right, and as slow-adopting conservatives finally move to the new medium.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"