Internet
Wikipedia Is Biased In Favor Of Liberals, Study Finds
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
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 Foundation, which 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.
By Cindy Harper
|
British Journalist Allison Pearson of The Telegraph has found herself under an unexpected police investigation following a social media post she made last year. According to Pearson, the inquiry began with a knock on her door at 9:40 am when two officers informed her that she was under scrutiny for allegedly inciting racial hatred in a post on X. Yet, they won’t tell her what the supposedly offending post was.
Pearson recounted the visit in an article, describing her surprise as the officers delivered the news. “I was accused of a non-crime hate incident. It had to do with something I had posted on X a year ago. A YEAR ago? Yes. Stirring up racial hatred apparently,” she recalled one officer telling her. Despite her attempts to understand the specifics, the officers refused to reveal the details of her alleged offense or identify the complainant, noting only that the individual in question was designated as “the victim.” Essex Police has since clarified that the investigation is based on a report from another police force and is being pursued under section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986, which addresses materials potentially inciting racial hatred. In a statement, a spokesperson confirmed that officers had attended Pearson’s residence “to invite a woman to attend a voluntary interview on the matter.” This approach, however, has drawn criticism from free speech advocates who argue that police intervention in non-crime incidents has a chilling effect on public discourse. Pearson’s experience follows recent shifts in policing policies, stemming from a Court of Appeal decision favoring former officer Harry Miller. Miller had argued that police tracking of gender-critical opinions as hate incidents without criminality stifled free expression. Current UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is exploring ways to reinforce police surveillance of non-criminal hate incidents. Meanwhile, X owner Elon Musk, who has previously condemned Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s attacks on free speech, has publicly criticized British law enforcement for investigating social media posts, raising further questions about the role of police in moderating online speech. This incident has sparked a wave of criticism from various corners, including Chris Philp, the Conservative shadow home secretary, who argues that the police should focus on actual crimes rather than policing thoughts and opinions. Echoing this sentiment, Liz Truss, former prime minister, and Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, have also voiced their concerns, with Truss decrying the investigation as a direct attack on free speech. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, pointed out the irony of the police’s timing, noting that such actions on Remembrance Sunday, a day dedicated to democratic values and free speech, were particularly egregious. |
|
With your support, we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.
Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause. Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.
Thank you.
|
From LifeSiteNews
A report from the House of Commons Heritage Committee claimed that ‘some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money.’
A report from a Canadian federal committee said MPs should enact laws to penalize social media and tech companies that don’t take action to quell so-called “undesirable or questionable” content on the internet.
MPs from the ruling Liberal, New Democratic Party (NDP), and separatists Bloc Québécois party on the House of Commons Heritage Committee summarized their opinions in a report.
“The Government of Canada notes some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money,” reads the report titled Tech Giants’ Intimidation and Subversion Tactics to Evade Regulation in Canada and Globally.
“Disinformation creates ‘doubt and confusion’ and can be particularly harmful when it involves health information,” it continues.
The report notes how such “disinformation” can cause “financial harms as well as political polarization and distrust in key institutions,” adding, “The prevalence of disinformation can be difficult to determine.”
As noted in Blacklock’s Reporter, the report claims that many of Canada’s “major societal harms” have come from “unregulated social media platforms relying on algorithms to amplify content, among them disinformation and conspiracy theories.”
Of note is the committee failed to define what “disinformation” or “conspiracy theories” meant.
Most of the MPs on the committee made the recommendation that Google, Facebook, and other social media platforms, which ironically have at one point or another clamped down on free speech themselves, “put mechanisms in place to detect undesirable or questionable content that may be the product of disinformation or foreign interference and that these platforms be required to promptly identify such content and report it to users.”
“Failure to do so should result in penalties,” the report stated.
As it stands, the federal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has plowed ahead to push laws impacting free speech online.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canadian legal group The Democracy Fund (TDF) warned that the Liberal government’s Bill C-63 seeks to further clamp down on online speech and will “weaponize” the nation’s courts to favor the ruling federal party and do nothing but create an atmosphere of “fear.”
Bill C-63 was introduced by Liberal Justice Minister Arif Virani in the House of Commons in February and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome.
Jordan Peterson, one of Canada’s most prominent psychologists, recently accused the bill of attempting to create a pathway to allow for “Orwellian Thought Crime” to become the norm in the nation.
Conservative MPs fight back: ‘A government bureaucracy should not regulate content’
Conservative MPs fought back the Heritage Committee’s majority findings and in a Dissenting Report said the committee did not understand what the role of the internet is in society, which is that it should be free from regulation.
“The main report failed to adequately explore the state of censorship in Canada and the role played by tech giants and the current federal government,” the Conservatives wrote in their dissenting report, adding, “Canadians are increasingly being censored by the government and tech giants as to what they can see, hear and say online.”
The Conservative MPs noted that when it comes to the internet, it is “boundless,” and that “Anyone who wants to have a presence on the internet can have one.”
“A government bureaucracy should not regulate which content should be prioritized and which should be demoted,” it noted, adding, “There is space for all.”
LifeSiteNews reported how the Conservative Party has warned that Trudeau’s Bill C-63 is so flawed that it will never be able to be enforced or become known before the next election.
The law calls for the creation of a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, all tasked with policing internet content.
The bill’s “hate speech” section is accompanied by broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics, including levying pre-emptive judgments against people if they are feared to be likely to commit an act of “hate” in the future.
Details of the new legislation also show the bill could lead to more people jailed for life for “hate crimes” or fined $50,000 and jailed for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories.
A License to Censor? The Fierce Fight Over the GEC’s Renewal
Canadian veterans battle invisible wounds of moral injury and addiction
Trump Effect: No One Gretz Off Easy Backing The Donald
Ottawa may soon pass ‘supply management’ law to effectively maintain inflated dairy prices
-
Business2 days agoTrudeau’s Alternative Universe: Claiming the Carbon Tax is Not Inflationary Defies Belief
-
International2 days agoKennedy Exposes the Swamp – Vivek and Musk Appointed to DOGE
-
Business1 day agoSanctuary State Told To Cut Spending On Hotel Stays For Migrants As Costs Expected To Hit $1 Billion
-
Business2 days agoOttawa’s emissions cap another headache for consumers and business
-
Automotive2 days agoBad ideology makes Canada’s EV investment a bad idea
-
Alberta1 day agoWorking to avoid future US tariffs, Alberta signs onto U.S. energy pact
-
Business2 days agoTaxpayers spent $15 million on Fauci’s private security, chauffeur after he left government
-
Business1 day agoYou Are Not Eating Ze Bugs…