How Wikipedia Lies To You
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 03. 2021
- Is Wikipedia a reliable source, or is it as prone to bias and false information as any other media outlet? In this video, we explore the fundamental problems of modern Wikipedia, and discover how the website regularly lies to its readers. One of the most basic lies Wikipedia tells is that it has a neutrality policy - in reality, the policy has glaring flaws. It's frequently used to assert liberal left worldviews as fact, as if they were the neutral statements of truth. On issues including (but not limited to) race and crime, drug legalization, and even religion, Wikipedia presents unbalanced and in some cases outright misleading information. The website has gotten to the point that its own co-founder, Larry Sanger, even wrote an article verbally destroying it. The article, titled 'Wikipedia Is Badly Biased' will be linked below. Other sources, including the many different studies documenting Wikipedia's left wing bias, are also linked.
Follow me on other platforms!
Telegram - t.me/PaxTube
Bitchute - www.bitchute.com/channel/paxt...
Odysee - odysee.com/@PaxTube:6
Gab - gab.com/PaxChristus
Citations:
Wikipedia Is Badly Biased by Larry Sanger - larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikip...
Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from
Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia - www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%2...
Ideology and Composition Among an Online Crowd: Evidence from Wikipedians - papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...
Wikipedia Source Analysis - www.creoliste.fr/docs/WikiInS...
Differential rates of disciplinary action reveals evidence of political bias in Wikipedia's arbitration enforcement - osf.io/5u6xe/
Music used in this video (in chronological order):
Serenity - Prod. Riddiman
Journey to Rome Part I - Jeff Van Dyck
Autumn - Jeff Van Dyck
Rome HQ - Jeff Van Dyck
Thanks for watching! Make sure to follow me on other platforms, as CZcams has proven unreliable for creators to say the least and you never know if they might shadowban or outright ban this channel.
Odysee - odysee.com/@PaxTube:6
Telegram - t.me/PaxTube
Bitchute - www.bitchute.com/channel/SwIazfNvHGAw/
Have an excellent day.
As someone who's had a Wikipedia editor account for decades I can tell you--this is all right on!
Thank God everybody hates Wikipedia, more for me to become smart! Keep being stupid and hate Wikipedia, that way I can basically learn/know the knowledge in the world!.
This is propaganda
Tragically it's not just Wikipedia. CZcams and sites like Tvtropes are also guilty of this.
@@shawnwarrynn8609 Really? Really, since when is CZcams considered an encyclopedia?
It's also really funny when you look up wikipedia articles on "white nationalism" vs. "black nationalism." The former points out all the violence, racism, etc. etc. but in the latter it states that black nationalism is "being proud of one's heritage and culture." smh
Bc it is lol u don’t see any difference between the two?
Why the hell do you want a nation based on an adaptation? I share next to no culture in common with a Greek, and a Bantu tribesman shares almost nothing in common with an African-American.
Erick Sanchez What is?
@@phr3ui559 Black and White Nationalism. Apparently one stupid idea is better than another stupid idea.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 white nationalism is based tho
Your teachers were right when they said Wikipedia is not a valid source, but for all the wrong reasons.
Because wikipedia was always opinionated. It simply went from bias in non-political areas to political once the left establishment realized it could be explotes
I remember the 90s and early 2000 when they said that to me😅. The left already used to be the dominant social culture but politics was pretty much still a mix. Now these times seem so far behind and what used to be a “healthy competition” is now a “stagnant & declining domination.
@@WhateverDaaah The left always dominated politics - the definition of "comservative" and "liberal" have been shifting to the left ever since ww2.
Today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals, and today's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives.
Modern Republicans pass as 2000s democrats, and the Tory party went completely mask off on immigration already
Yeah, in my class they said we mustn't use it because anyone can edit it and text may be unreferenced, but often the issue is the opposite: only a few can edit certain pages, which are full of references, but these are so biased that doesn't make a difference to straight up inventing things.
You can still get valuable information from the works cited page but the article itself is blatantly biased
How long until they get rid of the “Early Life” section?
I actually doubt they will. You know how little our big nosed friends care about subtlety these days.
They did do some cleaning, but for the most part, the merchants are boasting about their deeds
The abiogenesis article?
They cant. They literally use it to track their own. You know how pre burning their last temple they used to store there all records of their liniage of every person. Now they use wiki for that. Like top 9 wikipidor in russia is some nose editing pages with other noses.
oy vey
"EARLY LIFE"
Europeans came from Africa
Only useful thing about wiki
Based
OH GAWD!
@@satanshameer690 except no
Let's be real, Wikipedia editors are protoredditors.
Based
Fun fact: the average iq by country article was deleted 2 years ago lol
literal feelings over facts
Source? I can't find a reference to it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_IQ
This it, chief? Took me two seconds to check it.
What were we saying about facts and feelings? A conservative would never make shit up or not verify heresy in order to feel oppressed or slander opponents, wtf, that's so insane, I can't even imagine.... lmfao. I'm playing, they do that shit all the goddamn time, mfs never stop crying
@@acex222Because deleted articles are incredibly hard to find unless you try to recreate the article
"Just make your own Wikipedia!"
How well did infogalactic do?
Conservapedia is what happens when right wingers make their own wikipedia.
@@christiangamer1752 Look at their page on antisemitism.
@@kuu2856 The page seemed to be going strong until it suggested that it was a false claim that most anti-Semitism comes from the left.
Opposing Zionism isn't anti-Semitic.
@@yousquiddingme According to Prager U (which should have the "J-word" after it), opposing Zionism is antisemitic. Also, don't debate the person whom you just replied: he has been poisoned by BreadTube.
i see why my teachers in highschool often tell us not to search from wikipedia
The "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" Wikipedia article is one of the longest pages on the site.
It's longer than the BLM page, longer than the COVID-19 page.
For riots that lasted a few hours.
It lasted at least half of the day.
@@christiangamer1752 So a few hours
It wasn't even a "riot." Some unarmed peaceful protestors walked through an open public building; the police literally opened the doors for them.
@@cyberdragonzekrom6790 It wasn't a riot. They only stormed the capital building, showed up with firearms, and handcuffs for taking hostages.
@@christiangamer1752 lol, no. There was no "storming," nor "firearms," nor "handcuffs." You are a liar.
Imagine what the average editor writing the awfully inaccurate and biased information on Wikipedia pages is like
I already know what they're like and they're awful to be around because they think they're the smartest person in the fucking room.
@@alect5953 Whenever I check the userpage of any wiki editor I've ever looked into that's definitely the impression I got.
Basically the average Quora user.
@@SavageFreddy33 or the average Redditor.
@@alect5953 the absolute state of normies, huh?
The truth is kid, Wikipedia was biased from the start.
The game really was rigged from the start
Always was and always will be 🤷♀️
The Filipino editor who kept editing out other countries from the Lechon article and making it seem like suckling pork was a Filipino invention was enough for me to never trust wikipedia.
From memory it seemed like he pathologically ‘patrolled’ several articles, ensuring his changes were maintained.
I’m Filipino and I have to apologize on behalf of this guy. I do acknowledge that lechon is NOT a Filipino invention. But, we did adopt Lechon as a part of our cuisine. There’s a thing here called tsismis, where one spreads out rumors or gossips.
Good video, Pax. I noticed also that, in articles about American politicians, section titles like 'Abortion' or 'LGBT issues' all get changed into 'Abortion rights' and 'LGBT rights', while 'Gun rights' section titles get changed to simply 'Guns'. The corrupt administrators don't enforce the wikipedia rule prohibiting advocacy (if it's the "right" kind of advocacy).
lgbt issues and lgbt rights are two different things lmao
source: gay
You'll probably recall that the two sides of the abortion debate were called until some years ago, "pro-choice" and "pro-life". Since it was discovered a document where Margaret Sanger (famous feminist and eugenicist who founded Planned Parenthood) explained how they introduced the term "pro-choice" to fool people into accepting the thing, one day Wikipedia admins coincidentally decided they'd change both terms because none of them were neutral.
The replacements were "abortion rights movement" for pro-choice and "anti-abortion movement" for pro-life. At first seems about right because it doesn't contain the misleading word "choice", but it's actually much worse and less neutral because now it assumes abortion is not only a choice but a right, and by extension the other side becomes "anti-rights".
Astonishing how that site's despicable rulers have the cheeks to say they're implementing neutrality while doing the exact opposite.
Well technically “LGBT” and “Abortions” are basic human rights, while owning a firearm is still debatable (although im leaning a little but more in the pro-gun side)
@@ntb3210 In America, the U.S. Constitution says that owning firearms is a right of the people. The 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights would have to be repealed to change that. What authority has decreed that "technically" LGBT and abortion are human rights?
Activist editors on wikipedia are using language like "rights" to persuade rather than to inform, i.e., it is not a neutral encyclopedia.
@@Mike-ip6jeSimilarly, people bare the right to freedom of speech and expression and too bare the right to free thought.
Wikipedia should only really be used for technical stuff that has no connection what so ever to any political, philosophical or historical controversies.
But Black Israelite nationalists invented trains, planes, cars, submarines, the rocket engine and peanut butter.
I use it for some historian facts i also check the refrences i dont know tho why people say stop using wiki like i only use it for non politics
@@fliksn That's fine as long as you are constantly aware that you're being feed a very selective telling of History. It can actually be quite comical seeing them distort history in a blatant attempt to support the liberal world view.
PS, you can't really say you use it for "non-politics" when you read history. History is the basis of all politics since the past is all we have to shape our vision of the future. Thus, how someone chose to interpret history is intrinsically linked to their politics.
No, Wikipedia should never have existed at all.
@@adeleinetheartist8267 why
FYI, the pages about illegal immigration and race and crime have overwhelmingly been written by the same person. In fact that person is responsible for most bias on articles about American politics.
What is the username?
@@TexasHayden Snooganssnoogans
@@jakkew5753 Thanks
"Course: Zionist Editing on Wikipedia" czcams.com/video/t52LB2fYhoY/video.html&ab_channel=ArutzSheva
@@jakkew5753 That dude's literally a furry
You seriously need a bigger audience, this needs to be heard.
Thank you!
Posting on GAB
Nah. It's for the best he stays small.
@@christiangamer1752 wrong.
@@thelightangel7559 You don't get it. If people like him become big, they get the attention of the admins, and get silenced or banned over the smallest "issue".
We want him to stay small so he stays on the platform.
"Honey!! PaxTube is going to upload in ten hours!!!"
Yes dear...
"The abortion procedure is one of the safest in medicine."
For the mother, yes.
Duh. That's the point.
Who cares about the child? Why do you care about clumps of cells and not actual living breathing people?
@@NoahRamseysGhost Children are people.
@@KarmasAB123 lmao no 😚
@@NoahRamseysGhost Why not?
"Reality can be whatever I want”
Remember kids..... Do not use wiki as your reference for your research.
Based
Worked with an artist who kept trying to convince me giving everyone free college/university has absolutely no adverse effect to the economy. His source was Wikipedia.
I knew a guy who was in the military and he edited some incorrect information on a thing his group did and yet they removed his edits sourcing that a journalist that wasn't even there reported account differently.
Wikipedia's policy on "Reliable Sources" literally makes Mainstream Media Outlets the highest form of truth, so that doesn't surprise me.
This happens a ton, I remember someone who tried to edit their OWN wikipedia page that had some misinformation about them but it got rejected lmao
@@Kaledrone I remember how one detransioned person talked about how BIASED was his OWN Wikipedia page with many mistake existing there. He got rejected because he wasn't citing a "source"
@@norikofu509To be fair, how could the editors know that wasn't just a random dude.
This is something important people need to be aware of. There are literally groups that get paid for editting wikipedia pages. There are also groups that edit history related pages according to their own views.
Well the US government is the only group I know for sure has been involved in manipulation of English Wikipedia, but they're conservative and would defy the leftist narrative on issues of American imperialism. I hope you're not a righty, because that fact would be kinda inconvenient to your argument, lol
Wikipedia: Stop changing "anti-abortion" to "pro-life."
Me: Stop using bad faith arguments like "anti-abortion."
Would you or would you not describe yourself as anti-abortion? If I asked "are you pro, or anti-abortion", what would your response to that question be?
Ah yes, because the people who want to outlaw abortions are not anti-abortion. Such a bad faith argument to say so.
It's fine if they also say pro-abortion instead of pro-choice. If you really think abortion is such a bad thing, why is anti-abortion demeaning, anyway? Is anti-murder demeaning?
Not to mention that this is neither an argument nor bad faith, lol, you just added some buzzwords as conservatives love to do
@@HuckleberryHim because anti- sounds more aggresive than pro-. who would you rather hang out with subjectivly? anti comunists or pro liberty people?
The worst part about wikipedia is that it's rules are mostly held in place by a subservient userbase who basically enforce the admin's rules for them, and will report you a lot of the time.
I'm neither American nor white nor Christian. But I'm conservative and I completely agree with what you are saying.
I'm brown, Indian and Hindu and yes I have the same complaints about Wikipedia in our context as well.
My respect for you
This video needed to be made for a very long time
Uberbased
Im a democrat, and I find this level of bias on the part of wikipedia annoying. I enjoy having neutral perspectives on issues, as nothing is truly right or truly wrong. Most things are subjective and depends on perspective, but facts, what did or didnt happen should always be non biased. I feel you do a disservice not only to yourself, but to your argument if you don't address the pros and khans of you're side and their side, or the relevant facts that might help or hurt your situation. If you only see you're pros, and their khans, you just going to fail to convince anyone you have a reasonable position.
Its like a lawyer, who keeps saying his client is innocent because no one saw him, when his DNA is on the knife that killed the dude. You cant just gloss over that unless you want your client to lose, and to lose your very hard to earn license.
Im with you! I am a leftist liberal democrat and it’s very annoying how biased in favor of the left wikipedia can be. 😡
The point of controversy is that there are two sides about a debatable subject. We should hear and see the point of views of the two sides, not the perspective of one side.
What is exactly your point? Pax provided plenty of evidence that Wikipedia is not neutral and is slanted towards the left on political topics and certain scientific topics. There shouldn't be any denial on this.
@@1685Violin Who are you responding? We are on your side! 👍
@@frankcortes6852 The OP. I was confused by the wording and thought he was claiming Pax was wrong on this. Re-reading this and it turns out I misunderstood.
welcome to the post modern age. There is no truth...only power.
Looked up your claims on this topic, and holy s**** I am shocked about the biased, but more the security of such biased. Even these user aren't hiding their agenda.
Except for Early Life section
Sadly, my younger brother has said recently that he believes whole hartedly in wikipeidia even after I had told him it has been compromised. Hopefully he will watch this video and get a change in his view point, but I doubt it. He seems to have been brainwashed over the past year since the pandemic began.
Your brother is now on my prayer list.
Wake up babe new pax vid
Teachers: Don't use wikipedia as a primary source
Kids: It pretty much is one by now
Wikipedia sees this
Wikipedia changes how it's ran to keep children in their grasp
Now profound understanding for "Don't use Wikipedia as a primary source".
I'm surprised you watch Pax Tube since he is a dissident right winger while you are only a moderate leftist most likely.
Wikipedia is more of a tertiary source if anything.
@@RealSavage7 Actually, the site is known for its historical inaccuracies. It's not a good source.
You can't use primary sources for that website. According to their editors, they only accept secondary sources.
Bias (mostly of the left wing kind) appears to be almost exclusive to the English-speaking side of Wiki. If you read the articles on controversial subjects on say, the Romanian or Japanese Wikipedia, they are mostly neutral; they provide both pros and cons of the issues. For example, read the English article for the 2020 protests and then the Japanese version, and you’ll see just how differently the articles are written.
I can confirm this, Spanish Wikipedia and English Wikipedia is so different from one another
Hell even Russian wikipedia in most cases
I can confirm that german wiki is just as biased and bipartisan as the english version
Used to be - but for example - the Czech wikipedia - is already infected.
A German palaeontologist got his English Wikipedia page taken down because he started to criticise the theory of evolution.
so?
what's his name?
Evolution is real
@@robespierregracchus3153 It proves Wikipedia is biased in some form or another
@@phr3ui559 evolution is not true
Fun thing is that I actually became devout to Saint Louis IX because of how based his Portuguese Wikipedia page is. They just purely state out what he's done in his life, and that's it.
As Brazilian historian Prof. Lucas Lancaster states, his legacy and his figure was so utterly pure that there's nothing bad or ill can make up against him. Bravo, truly
People forget too just how small the Wikipedia editorial base is. A lot of these articles will have been written by the same one or two people.
The word "holocaust" occurs in the first paragraph of the Adolf Hitler entry, in sentence number four. The word "holodomor" goes unmentioned in the Joseph Stalin entry until 54 paragraphs in.
Woop woop
This doesn't surprise me. It seems to me that Russians wuth an agenda may be editing some historical Wikipedia pages. As a Finn, I noticed this some time back on articles about Winter War & Continuation War.
Because Hitler's main motivation and actions were the Holocaust, the Holomodor wasn't the thing Stalin was planning to do for 20 years straight
I edited a page once with a citation that proved the quote I added and it was deleted. I hate Wikipedia. If I ever use Wikipedia I immediately go to the “last edit” section to see any true information. Thanks for making this video, it alleviates my frustration by being able to share the truth about the despicable free dictionary website. Also, the creator of Wikipedia even says it is unreliable.
*E A R L Y L I F E*
I don’t even need to check early life anymore, I have developed a new sense
Well, Conservapedia turned out to be totally correct after all.
maybe because you're a conservative?
@@MappingRobloxAnimations Not because conservapedia is right, but widely because the founder was right about Wikipedia's bias.
@@MappingRobloxAnimationsJust compare their articles on GamerGate lmao
Wikipedia - unbiased, yet so wrong.
Wikipedia is 100% biased.
@@ranchhilliness9908 True, what i meant is that they are biased in a neutral way.
@@fnfallout5664 Except, they don't view a neutral perspective the same way a sane, rational person would define neutral.
@@fnfallout5664I don’t quite agree with you “they’re biased in a neutral way” there’s no such thing as being biased in a neutral way. Almost every human being has some kind of bias but it usually has to do with their interests, beliefs and views. Wikipedia on the other hand is just flat on biased dealing with topics such as religions, politics and social issues it may be because of the leftists
Based and all true, please share this video as much as you can guys.
This problem does exist on Arabic wikipedia, but in a different way. It's biased for Islam and more critic toward any beliefs or ideas that don't align with Sunni Islam.
I don't understand why this happens.
at least Islam is an Abrahamic religion vs progressivism
@@Stars.-Bars.-n-Cheese if you know Islam well you would prefer not only progressivism but also atheism over it.
Wikipedia is just RationalWiki 2.0 now
they lied about human rights in several countries
same thing happened to Quora... what a sad day in which we live..
You should check the war articles and how much of a *current thing™* echo chamber it is.
@@saintdolanchirosius3704 word, son, you ain't lyin!😅
I used to support Wikipedia with a yearly donation. I stopped doing that when it became yet another tool controlled by leftist interests.
Wikipedia always was a tool controlled by leftist interests, you dingo.
Wikipedia : racism is bad
Centrists : oh my god not the woke mob
@@maxenswlfr1877 Wow so funny, said no one ever.
@@maxenswlfr1877 We all know you didn't watch the video especially the section about nazism
New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia is the only good online encyclopedia
I will not elaborate further
I used to contribute to a lot of Fandom wikis for topics I had interest in but oddly a few years ago at some point it seems most of them locked all their articles and stopped accepting edits despite them still often making mistakes and lacking citations and other important information. Hell I remember someone uses a Fandom wiki in an argument against me when the wiki's information blatantly countered the what the source material said. Even on a small scale I'm disappointed on the monopoly on information and how most people never question it or see it as a problem.
comparing fandom to wikipedia 😶 fuckkk the misinformation on the my little ponys fandom is unbelievable!!!!
what do you expect them to do, genuinely? If the information is wrong, fix it. If sources are lacking, add them?? No encylopedia is going to right all the time. It's an online encyclopedia you need volunteers to write articles and update them accordingly with accurate information. If every single article is left available to edit to the public then you'll have people constantly vandalizing or adding blatantly false information that someone will have to countiously come back to fix. If every single article is left locked then obvious bias starts to accumulate and simple mistakes will take longer to be fixed. There obviously needs to be a balance. Popular Fandoms often lock their main articles to reputable users for a reason. It's not a "monopoly on information," pure anarchy will never work when you're trying to make an online encyclopedia.
@@brusselseastside3546 These wikis have always had moderators. Typically trolling wouldn't last an hour before it was cleaned up. There's no reason to apply incorrect information, refuse to fix it, and then disallow others from fixing it. There aren't as many trolls on the prowl to mess with every article as you think anyway. Also you do realize there are Fandom wikis on historical events right?
The labelling of conservative media figures, particularly smaller ones with less of a mainstream platform, as 'far-right' is also a massive problem. To label someone as being 'far-right', they can often quote a legacy media article(s) that use a meaningless version of the term designed to discredit right wing discussions. On their article for 'far-right', the first photo is a crowd waving hate symbols and describes the term as being authoritarian and fascist. On the 'far-left' article, it states that the term has 'no coherent meaning'. They can label people and groups far right based on a loose and polticized definition and then define the term themselves differently, meaning that right wing groups, who in no way condone fascism or similar ideologies, now get a blue link leading to a swastika on their page. It's the weaponisation of a major platform on behalf of leftism.
for wikipedia close border means alt right neo fascism
funny thing about the abortion argument even thought they are completely super biased Wikipedia from it, after reading it I'm more pro life, just shows how bad the pro abortion argument is
Good.
Just goes to show how much you hate women yeah
@@adeleinetheartist8267You have earned my respect.
@@joshuahernandez5669 okay.
I only use it to consult some math / physics topics, but now nothing, in fact, its better that this page die awfully for being an insult to knowledge and sanity itself.
Race hazard , coriolis force are total bs no such thing as coriolis "force" they are numb nuts but don't try telling them that.
When it comes to scientific topics, wikipedia is pretty biased as well. I am interested in endocrinology and some of the articles I read on it basically establish something that is hotly debated in the community as an absolute "fact that is well established" and then they cite studies that prove that the topic is a "fact", but in reality there are also just as many studies and research papers that contradict that "fact". So basically, a lot of these scientific articles on wikipedia just cite studies that "prove" their point while completely ignoring half the other studies that conflict with their point as if pretending those studies just simply don't exist. That's as biased as you can get.
How have I only just discovered this channel??
Wikipedia is not the most reliable website for information but I give them some credit: at least they put the footnotes and bibliography at the end of their articles. From there you can write down the books you want to search to read on your own.
I'm a Wikipedia editor and a religious, conservative person. But because I use Wikipedia excessively, I probably will never stop searching on it. I'll try to avoid the political-related articles but I will say that Wikipedia has a quite anti-religious stance. It says that the Exodus narrative is a "myth."
I have seen many articles that follow this trend😢
That's because it is a myth, as confirmed by virtually all biblical scholars (Christian or not), archeologists and historians.
@@BurnBird1because nothing amazing can actually happen in this world, right?
Great video! I used to edit lots of articles on various conflicts in the world and I was eventually banned for being a nazi after including a source which makes projections for populations of each continent over time, based on current birthrates.
I call them WikiPropaganda Last time someone bragged that they were an "editor" their nose mysteriously exploded.
A lot of people pointed out about how the Croatian Wikipedia was biased for promoting Ustasha (which I don't support in any way btw) but they fail to mention how English Wikipedia itself is seriously biased.
If you want to laugh:
Wikipedia on White pride:"White pride and white power are expressions primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, fascist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations in order to signal racist or racialist viewpoints." LOL
Wikipedia on Black pride:"Black Pride in the United States is a movement which encourages black people to celebrate African-American culture and embrace their African heritage."
This is the reason that I quit donating to Wikipedia. Although their mathematical and scientific articles tend to be very good, the overt bias regarding religious and political issues is enough to justify not donating.
You need to reconsider.... if their political and religeous articles are so bad, it would inherently infect everything else they do as well. Especially science. And if they put anything in about being able to devide by 0........
I can remember a Time when Wikipedia was not allowed to be referenced in any papers submitted for university because the editors could not be verified. Nowadays, professors will accept citations made to Wikipedia and I just can’t understand why. (Sarcasm)
What really upsets me in particular is the section about illegal immigration. Illegal immigration does NOT help the US economy by no means. In fact, it is a major burden on tax payers and federal spending. Legal immigration on the other hand, is VERY good for America. Anyone who follows our immigration policies and waits in line just like all other law abiding immigrants is certainly worthy of admission.
Hope this video blows up. You did a great job, Pax!
There's a reason teachers tell you not to use Wikipedia as a reference.
ah yes, the free online encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit.
Been waiting for this
I’m so glad I’ve never used wikipedia from the start so biased and unreliable filled with misinformation…
finally people are starting to see
If you want to see how biased wikipedia is, read the opening paragraph on their article about Religilous vs their opening paragraph on their article about Expelled.
Wikipedia has strict rules when it comes to writing articles about works of fiction, especially Japanese origin video games. Game guide content is not allowed on Wikipedia. When it comes to userboxes, you aren’t allowed to express dislikes; only likes. You’re not allowed to state in your user page your stand on politics involving social class.
I love the rome total war background music
Shame your channel is being throttled, in a normal internet environment this video would have at least a couple of million views.
In the Encyclopedia Britannica, articles were signed by their authors. In Wikipedia, articles are not only anonymous, but unseen editors decide whether or not changes put in by contributors are retained. If the changes are pointedly undesirable, then said contributors are blocked indefinitely from ever editing articles again. One can appeal these blocks, but only silence ensues. As a vignette, I looked up Jack Posobiec, and he was describedas "an American alt-right[8] political activist, [...] conspiracy theorist,[10] [...] and provocateur.[12][13][14]" In an earlier version, he was described as an online "troll". George Soros, meanwhile, is described simply as "a Hungarian-American[b] businessman and philanthropist"[.]
They quote resources like USA Today, The Independent and even the newspaper (((Haaretz))).
Thanks for the video! From before I knew that something was not right on Wikipedia. And I am an editor.
Academia is in general just left-leaning.
I love your videos please don’t give up . Perhaps you should one day make a video explaining how the LGBT are the new slave power .
I used to donate to this website. No longer.
Sorry, Snopes has fact checked this and concluded that your video is "Mostly False"
:^)
Change your pfp.
And who's fact checking Snopes?
@@benitocamelo1488
Facebook and they back Snopes 100%.
Yay! Pax Tube uploaded!
It's illegal to tell the truth point out facts or have a opinion these days unless it is one hundred percent politically correct.
I wanted to comment saying this is the best video so far but the truth is I feel that way about every video you make lol.
I also missed a few videos recently, I didnt recieve a notice for them. I checked and I guess my setting to be notified of every video you post was changed for some reason but I changed it back so hopefully it wont happen again
I think that what applies here is similar to what’s been said about any socially oriented organization. That being, any large scale organization that is not specifically conservative, inevitably is or becomes left wing in its sympathies.
In the case of Wikipedia - and numerous “fact-checkers” - the fact that active participants fancy themselves to be intellectuals is a significant factor.
I’ve seen even popular dictionaries - accurately - list fascists as….fascists, extreme right wing, authoritarian, and dictators yet describe ruthless communist dictators as, “premiers,” “leaders,” “revolutionaries,” or “General secretary of the communist party.”
The left is soooo full of shit.
Yeah, that Left is so full of shit they still need to be in diapers!
I mean I'm left (democrat) and I don't think being left is the issue, nor would be being the right. I think its the fact these people have no personality other than "im left so everything I do must be too". These sort of people have no credible backbone, and let their bias run rampant just so they can change everything to be in their view. I hate it when anyone does it, even if they are on 'my team' sort of speak. I think every group has these sorts of people, and they all are very annoying.
I like neutral perspectives, and understanding the situation as a whole, rather than going into it from my bias. Because I know I probably have one, we all do, and if I just reverted to it whenever I examined everything, id probably do stupid shit like these wikiidiots. Facts are facts, and sometimes things we are deeply invested into have more nuance than we would like.
@@phoenixyo9987 - Thanks for your appraisal. ‘Nice to see a reasonable and objective reply.
Should've been titled: "How Wikipedia Lies to You or The Redditization of Wikipedia"
Also, I haven't used Wikipedia in a long time... There's so much more information available without the need of amateurish Wikis... Another thing: when someone cites Wiki as reference that's a huge red flag and that person's credibility should be questioned
Make a video debunking homosexuality and other stuff. You're really good.
WHATS THE PROBLEM WITH HOMOSEXUALITY!?
Omg a man likes a man pax pls help me
most underrated channel i have ever seen...keep going great
Great video. You are completely correct about Wikipedia bias, and do a great job summarizing/explaining it in your video.
I'm sad to say I don't recall what excactly i looked up. But it was a mathematical concept on wikipedia. The article started talking about how this formula was made thousands of years prior in China. And i knew that simply couldn't be true, i went to their source and it was just a book about Chinese history, there wasn't even a false claim about any mathematical finding. I corrected it, as a mathematician perhaps i care a little bit more about these findings, i wrote the explanation for why this claim was nonsense and how it wasn't supported, the part i edited was very soon restored and kept. I've had this experience a couple of times on and off from wikipedia, but I don't use for a source ever since the Sexual Dimorphism page made claims about how society was keeping women down, and thats why they had less upper body strength than men. Which was more than 10 years ago.
6:04 - Got Code Geass on the mind, Pax?
Look at wikipedia's article on Jan 6, then look the article on BLM and the Waukesha massacre
This is interesting. Got me thinking a lot. I think mainly because I use WIkipedia a lot. I don't do so blindly, but try to use other sources as well. I also make good use of my language skills. I'd like to see what your other videos are like.
Thought I was crazy when I heard the Rome Total War music in the background. Good work!
I have spent so much money on Wikipedia earlier I noticed some articles left-leaning but the last few articles I read completely lie 😔😔😔
That's really true, under any point of view. Just think about the comparison between the articles of antifascism and anti-communism. The first is about the fight against any form of fascism.Whereas the second talks about how "anti-communism" is ambiguous, because there're many paths in this ideology. Furthermore, it's written that the term is against the classic communism, while nowadays comm. countries, like China, are "ok".
But, at the end, I suggest to read both articles for getting my point.
I hate how fascism went from an actual definition of a dictatorship based in ultra nationalism to a buzzword used to shut down opponents.
I didn't know there is a way to "Donate" on Wikipedia 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Donate for what? Information?
It's much misinformation there and
NONE of the information or misinformation are writed by the persons administrating the website .
Donations are more complex then giving money to strangers on internet or participating at making somebody richer by gathering fools donations.
Donate to misinformation, bias and unreliability 💀
Wikipedia has turned into a big number two, like Twitter, CZcams, Google and Facebook.
what website do you recommend for realible news?
Insightful stuff that I never knew before. I'll have to let others know the truth