Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source

>>109486
>Critics of Wikipedia state that Wikipedia's articles contain systemic bias,[4] and that the information included within its articles are a mixture of truths, half-truths, and falsehoods.[5] The nature of Wikipedia also makes it subject to spin and bias, examples of which include paid public relations advocacy and inserting libelous content into the biographies of politicians for a political purpose.[5] Wikipedia was also criticized for having a liberal bias in its articles about politics, despite Wikipedia's supposed "neutral point of view" policy.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia

>>109489
Isn't Conservapedia the one that gets hit by trolls?

>>109489
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

It was used as a source before this?
>>109489
>conservapedia
You can't be serious.

>>109486
...source cannot be named because they are not authorized to comment
Do you trust someone (a ceo) who says this? Or the idiot who babbles when told not to babble?

>>109494
>>109496
Conservapedia is absolute shit, but wikipedia does have a serious problem with bias. Several of the top admins are feminists who push their agenda where needed. Jimmy himself has defended bias. There's even a thing called "Storming Wikipedia" where feminists organize to take over wikipedia articles and rewrite them with a feminist bias. You can actually get college credit at several American colleges for editing wikipedia articles to be feminist-friendly

>>109529
If that is true, how is Conservapedia "shit", it sounds more like much needed opposition to an flawed system.

Misogynists fighting Misandrists is equally good AND bad. Both should be purged from public media for beeing sexist.

With no purge called for or even an recognized need for reform for Wikipedia, than any form or organized opposition should be embraced to maintain the status quo.

not even /pol/ accepts dailyfail

>>109489
>conservapedia
why would i read this if i'm not conservative? this screams "systemic bias: the websight"

>>109544
>Fight fire with fire
No. You're just creating a bigger fire.