Exclusive: Experts say changes to Grand Mosque of Shadian mark completion of five-year sinification campaign
  • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    1 month ago

    I was just reading about it. It’s another web encyclopedia trying to incorporate other encyclopedias to compete against Wikipedia’s biases.

    This is an archived article from the guy who first wrote about the “ghost cities.”

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        1 month ago

        I’ll reserve judgment until I find more information. It could be a good thing, Wikipedia does have problems with editors changing articles, or it could be a bad thing to proliferate misinformation. That’s why I linked the Reuters article.

        Edit: I read through the page on Fascism. It’s crap, runaway.

          • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 month ago

            Someone already showed that the linked article was outdated nonsense almost the minute it was published.

            Where? Everything I’m reading says that most of the new state-level areas are inhabited and not “ghost cities.” Unless Ohio State is wrong.

              • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                1 month ago

                I care about the facts and the truth, not the source, as should you.

                But I notice you ignored all the left-wing sources I provided that demonstrates the new areas in China are populated and not “ghost cities,” so I’m guessing none of this actually matters to you anyway.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
                  2·
                  1 month ago

                  This is what you said which started this conversation:

                  I was just reading about it. It’s another web encyclopedia trying to incorporate other encyclopedias to compete against Wikipedia’s biases.

                  I showed you that the whole thing is about Wikipedia not having a right-wing bias.

                  I thought you cared about facts and truth?

                  • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    1 month ago

                    I do. I admitted Justapedia was a biased source:

                    Edit: I read through the [page](https://justapedia.org/wiki/Fascism) on Fascism. It’s crap, runaway.

                    but the references linked were credible.

                    I’ll admit when I’m wrong, will you?

                    Five studies, including two from Harvard researchers, have found a left-wing bias at Wikipedia:

                    • A Harvard study found Wikipedia articles are more left-wing than Encyclopedia Britannica.
                    • Another paper from the same Harvard researchers found left-wing editors are more active and partisan on the site.
                    • A 2018 analysis found top-cited news outlets on Wikipedia are mainly left-wing.
                    • Another analysis using AllSides Media Bias Ratings™ found that pages on American politicians cite mostly left-wing news outlets.
                    • American academics foundconservative editors are 6 times more likely to be sanctioned in Wikipedia policy enforcement. source