• TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months 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      Someone already showed that the linked article was outdated nonsense almost the minute it was published.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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months 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.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months 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.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months 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.
              • 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
              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                When did I say Wikipedia didn’t have a bias? Please quote me.

                Again, if you care about the truth, you’ll show where I made that claim that you think you’re refuting.

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Maybe I misread it. I’m not concerned with winning an argument, only with correcting the misinformation about “ghost cities.” I did that. Now I just have wait for Legoland Sichuan to open in 2025 in the new state-level are of Tianfu. Hopefully it won’t be too crowded, since it’s a “ghost city.”

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    “Maybe” you misread what?

                    I never claimed Wikipedia had a bias.

                    You berated me for not caring about facts and truth, then you lied about me, now you won’t even admit it was a lie.