this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2026
1049 points (99.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

11874 readers
1025 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] kevinsky@feddit.nl 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Is wikipedia biased or are the facts just generally not in favor of the right wing side of politics? Is wikipedia rejecting right wing sources or does right wing media just have a higher than average tendancy to cater to public opinion with "editorial liberties"?

This is not the first time I hear people essentially brand wikipedia as left wing, but it would be the first time somebody actually proved that sentiment with some examples that proves factual right wing sources are actively rejected.

I have no problem with the idea that reality and therefore wikipedia could be left leaning, but that's only a problem if it's forced to look that way. I don't think it is.

[โ€“] MorPolitics@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago

Here's a direct source for Wikipedia's own position on source reliability. I could send you someone's interpretation of it, but those interpretations would introduce another layer of bias, so it's better to look at the source itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger have both criticized Wikipedia in ways similar to my own criticisms, but they share some of my biases, which might cause you to dismiss their views as well if you already have a strong opinion on the matter.

Larry Sanger bias drama discussed from a perspective likely closer to your own bias. - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/business/media/wikipedia-larry-sanger-barred.html

https://wiki.encyclosphere.org/WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity

Larry Sanger - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger Jimmy Wales - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales

P.S. It's possible to dislike right-wingers and still acknowledge that Wikipedia has a bias problem.