The only thing this sort of obvious political bias does is discredit Wikipedia and push readers to less reputable sites for information.
Like many others on here, I prefer to go directly to multiple biased sources like npr, CNN, breitbart, nypost because I understand their bias and can sort through it to tease out information.
The thing that I find the most distasteful is any source that purports to be unbiased, but uses subtle language tricks to skew their readers towards a conclusion.
I find such things to be the most toxic, and avoid them.
I don't agree with the other commenters on here that argue "it's mostly good", so that makes it ok.
When there's a hidden bias, it makes it much more difficult to tease through the information to find something that resembles the truth.
It is mostly good, but the bad parts aren't evenly distributed. There are a couple specific categories of articles where Wikipedia can be bad. Anything political involving people on the Internet is guaranteed to produce a good or bad article depending mostly on which people on the Internet manage to edit the Wikipedia article. Anything political at all from the past couple of years beyond bare facts like "was this person convicted in court", for the same reasons. There's also subjects that not a lot of people care about, which can be good or bad depending on how competent the 1 or 2 people who edit the article are.
CNN was openly anti-Trump for the entire administration, as in, instructions were literally passed down that reporting should be slanted in such a way as to taint him.
It isn't a case of having to think they have a bias, it's a case of literally being told that bias is part of their policy.
It wasn't hard to spot, either. Their reportage during the Trump administration was absurd. You'd have headlines and first-paragraphs that were contradicted by the entire rest of the article; the headline and intro para made Trump look bad, the rest of the article begrudgingly attempted to convey the facts. It was utter nonsense.
> CNN was openly anti-Trump for the entire administration, as in, instructions were literally passed down that reporting should be slanted in such a way as to taint him.
Interesting. Do you have a link to the evidence of these instructions? I'd like to read them.
There was an incident with a whistleblower - a CNN reporter - recorded in a restaurant relating how there'd be a narrative line passed down from the top every day. You'll have to dig it up as I can't remember the guy's name. Was relatively widely reported.
Like many others on here, I prefer to go directly to multiple biased sources like npr, CNN, breitbart, nypost because I understand their bias and can sort through it to tease out information.
The thing that I find the most distasteful is any source that purports to be unbiased, but uses subtle language tricks to skew their readers towards a conclusion.
I find such things to be the most toxic, and avoid them.
I don't agree with the other commenters on here that argue "it's mostly good", so that makes it ok.
When there's a hidden bias, it makes it much more difficult to tease through the information to find something that resembles the truth.