Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Internet

Wikipedia Is Biased In Favor Of Liberals, Study Finds

Published

3 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By WALLACE WHITE

 

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger said to Unheard in 2021 that Wikipedia cannot be trusted any longer as a neutral source of information, saying it has become “propaganda.”

“You can’t cite the Daily Mail at all. You can’t cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It’s banned,”

Wikipedia entries are more likely to paint public figures on the right in a negative light than the left, a Manhattan Institute study released Thursday found.

The study analyzed the sentiments of 1,628 words that were used in reference to political topics and found that Wikipedia generally uses more negative terms in reference to right-leaning public figures, and less when referencing left-leaning figures. The results would suggest that Wikipedia is contradicting its “neutral-point-of-view” policy, according to the study.

It also found that certain terms associated with right-wing politics are connected with emotions of anger and disgust more than left-wing politics. The same pattern can be seen with left-leaning ideas being more associated with joy related terms than right-leaning ideas.

The study warns that OpenAI language models share similarities with Wikipedia, underscoring the potential for bias in Wikipedia to affect other systems that rely on OpenAI technology.

“There is a degree of overlap in the prevailing sentiment associations of political terms in word embeddings derived from Wikipedia content and word embeddings from the OpenAI GPT series,” the study said. “This is not surprising, given that Wikipedia articles are likely a prominent part of OpenAI’s secret corpus of data used to train ChatGPT.”

OpenAI’s ChatGPT software has been shown to express left-leaning bias in its responses, according to a separate finding from the Manhattan Institute. Other researchers in 2022 have also found bias in its content filtering system.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger said to Unheard in 2021 that Wikipedia cannot be trusted any longer as a neutral source of information, saying it has become “propaganda.”

“You can’t cite the Daily Mail at all. You can’t cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It’s banned,” Sanger said. “So, what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream center-Left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia.”

Wikimedia Foundation, the parent 501(c)(3) that manages Wikipedia, created the Wikimedia Endowment as a “collective action fund” managed by the left-wring grantmaking titan Tides Foundationwhich has donated millions of dollars to left-leaning causes since its inception. In 2019, the Wikimedia foundation hired Amanda Keton as general counsel, who was previously the CEO of Tides Advocacy, the 501(c)(4) arm of Tides that works on the “creation, financing, and consultation of various left-of-center organizations,” according to Influence Watch.

The Wikimedia Foundation did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Mainstream media missing in action as YouTuber blows lid off massive taxpayer fraud

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Vice President JD Vance is giving public credit to a YouTube journalist for doing what he says legacy media and elite institutions have failed to do: follow the money in Minnesota. In a post on X, Vance praised independent reporter Nick Shirley for digging into alleged fraud networks tied to the state, saying Shirley “has done far more useful journalism than any of the winners of the 2024 Pulitzer prizes.” The comment was a direct response to a video Shirley shared online documenting what he described as widespread fraud, with Shirley claiming his team identified more than $110 million in suspicious activity in a single day while confronting facilities allegedly receiving millions in public funds.

Shirley’s reporting has been circulating widely among conservatives, with commentators amplifying clips of him visiting supposed daycare and education centers that appeared inactive despite receiving massive federal aid. Conservative media personality Benny Johnson said Shirley had exposed more than $100 million in Minnesota Somali-linked fraud routed through fake daycare and healthcare fronts, adding to the pressure on state leadership. The issue gained further traction after Tom Emmer, Minnesota’s top House Republican, demanded answers from Gov. Tim Walz following a viral clip showing Shirley confronting workers at an alleged daycare in South Minneapolis. Shirley reported the center, called the “Quality Learning Center,” showed no visible activity despite claims it served up to 99 children, and even misspelled “learning” on its signage. As Shirley approached, a woman inside was heard shouting “Don’t open up,” while incorrectly accusing him of being an ICE agent.

The controversy builds on earlier reporting from City Journal, which published a November investigation citing federal counterterrorism sources who said millions of dollars siphoned through Minnesota fraud schemes had been sent overseas, with some of the money allegedly ending up in the hands of Al-Shabaab. One confidential source quoted in the report bluntly claimed, “The largest funder of Al-Shabaab is the Minnesota taxpayer.” Since that report, the scrutiny has widened inside the Trump administration. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has announced that the Treasury Department is examining whether Minnesota taxpayer funds were diverted to terrorist-linked groups, while Education Secretary Linda McMahon has publicly called on Walz to resign amid separate allegations of large-scale education fraud within the state’s college system.

Taken together, the attention from Vance, congressional Republicans, and multiple federal agencies has elevated Shirley’s reporting from viral internet content to a flashpoint in a broader debate over fraud, accountability, and the role of independent journalists. For the vice president, the message was clear: real accountability sometimes comes not from prize committees or press rooms, but from outsiders willing to ask uncomfortable questions and stand in front of locked doors with a camera rolling.

Largest fraud in US history? Independent Journalist visits numerous daycare centres with no children, revealing massive scam

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

US Under Secretary of State Slams UK and EU Over Online Speech Regulation, Announces Release of Files on Past Censorship Efforts

Published on

logo

By

Sarah Rogers’ comments draw a new line in the sand between America’s First Amendment and Europe’s tightening grip on online speech.

Speaking during an appearance on The Liz Truss Show, Rogers said Washington intends to respond to the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom after it sought to bring the website 4chan under its jurisdiction.
She said the situation “forced” the US to defend its constitutional protections, warning that “when British regulators decree that British law applies to American speech on American sites on American soil with no connection to Britain,” the matter can no longer be ignored.
Rogers called it “a perverse blessing” that the dispute is forcing a renewed transatlantic conversation about free expression, observing that “Britain and America did develop the free speech tradition together.”
Rogers announced that the State Department will soon publish a collection of previously unreleased internal emails and documents describing earlier US government involvement in social media moderation efforts.
The release is part of what she termed a “truth and reconciliation initiative” that will include material linked to the now-defunct Global Engagement Center, which she said had coordinated with outside organizations to identify content for takedown.
That operation was “immediately dismantled” after she assumed her current post.
She argued that foreign governments have moved from cooperation to coercion in their dealings with US companies. “Europe and the UK and other governments abroad are…trying to nullify the American First Amendment by enforcing against American companies and American speakers and American soil,” Rogers said, referring to the EU’s fine against X and Ofcom’s recent enforcement campaigns.
On domestic policy, she criticized the UK’s Online Safety Act, saying that it is being sold as child protection legislation but in practice functions as a speech control measure.
“These statutes are just censoring adult political speech is not the best way to protect kids and it’s probably the worst way,” she said.
Rogers noted that under such laws, even parliamentary remarks about criminal networks could be censored if regulators deem them harmful.
Turning to Ofcom’s ongoing 4chan case, Rogers said its legal position effectively claims authority over purely American websites.
She offered a hypothetical: “I could go set up a website in my garage…about American political controversies…and Ofcom’s legal position nonetheless is that if I run afoul of British content laws, then I have to pay money for the British government.”
Rogers said she expects the US government to issue a response soon.
Throughout the interview, Rogers framed the current wave of global online regulation as an effort to suppress what she called “chaotic speech” that emerges with every major communications shift.
“People panic and they want to shove that innovation back in the bottle,” she said, warning that such attempts have “never worked.”
Her remarks mark one of the strongest rebukes yet from a senior American official toward the growing European model of compelled content moderation.
Rogers suggested that this model not only undermines open debate but also sets a precedent for governments worldwide to police political speech beyond their borders.
Continue Reading

Trending

X