The Epstein Files have been released
- Thread starter ZNP
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
This is the most prideful and sinful comeback I have ever seen. Add a passive aggressive tone and then you got the whole nine yard.
If that is the way you feel then you should have given the "winner" emoji to the post.
Wow. Wiki is a neutral source and any news article I cite you know you'd scream FAKE NEWS!!!! Learn humility.
Evidence suggests that Wikipedia often exhibits a left-leaning, liberal, or "establishment" bias in its political content. Studies have shown that many articles, especially those regarding US politics, civil rights, and public figures, tend to favor Democratic views, with right-of-center figures sometimes associated with more negative sentiment. AI to your Wikipedia
Humility has nothing to do with this.
Wikipedia can be edited by readers.
And the news article I referred to was the one I earlier posted.
Learn to pay attention to what is written in a post. Quit being so anxious to reply instead.
Evidence suggests that Wikipedia often exhibits a left-leaning, liberal, or "establishment" bias in its political content. Studies have shown that many articles, especially those regarding US politics, civil rights, and public figures, tend to favor Democratic views, with right-of-center figures sometimes associated with more negative sentiment. AI to your Wikipedia
No, wikipedia does not have a bias. That is what makes radical conservatives upset and have their safe spaces on TV.
It leads to radials like you playing games. Why did you not cite the source of this material and what word or phrases you used? Very suspicious. I Googled "wikipedia" using AI.
Wikipedia is a free, multilingual online encyclopedia created and maintained as an open-collaboration project by a community of volunteer editors. Launched on January 15, 2001, it is now the world’s largest and most-read reference work.
Key Features and Facts
- Open Editing: Almost anyone with internet access can edit most of its articles.
- Multilingual: It is available in over 300 languages, with the English edition alone hosting over 7.1 million articles.
- Management: It is operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization funded primarily through donations.
- Five Pillars: The site’s fundamental principles include its status as an encyclopedia, maintaining a neutral point of view, being free content, respectful interaction among editors, and having no firm rules.
- Software: It runs on MediaWiki, an open-source wiki software developed in PHP.
Core Content Policies
To maintain quality and reliability, Wikipedia relies on three core content policies:
- Neutral Point of View (NPOV): Representing all significant views fairly and without bias.
- Verifiability: Material must be supported by reliable, published sources.
- No Original Research: Articles must not contain new theories or unpublished facts.
Google AI search: Wikipedia liberal bias,results:
Evidence suggests Wikipedia often displays a left-leaning or liberal bias, frequently noted by critics, including co-founder Larry Sanger. Analyses indicate articles on U.S. politics often favor Democratic perspectives and present left-leaning viewpoints, particularly in sensitive areas like social issues,, and, and,. Studies, including those from Harvard Business School, have noted a higher propensity for ideological slant compared to traditional,,.
Key points regarding the alleged liberal bias on Wikipedia:
About the source
This overview was generated with the help of AI. It’s supported by info from across the web and Google’s Knowledge Graph, a collection of info about people, places, and things. Generative AI is a work in progress and info quality may vary. For help evaluating content, you can visit the provided links. Learn more about how AI Overviews work and how data helps Google develop AI in Search.
Evidence suggests Wikipedia often displays a left-leaning or liberal bias, frequently noted by critics, including co-founder Larry Sanger. Analyses indicate articles on U.S. politics often favor Democratic perspectives and present left-leaning viewpoints, particularly in sensitive areas like social issues,, and, and,. Studies, including those from Harvard Business School, have noted a higher propensity for ideological slant compared to traditional,,.
Key points regarding the alleged liberal bias on Wikipedia:
- Source Reliance: Critics, including Sen. Ted Cruz, argue that Wikipedia’s reliance on mainstream media, which they claim is left-leaning, filters liberal viewpoints into the content.
- Co-founder Criticism: Larry Sanger has publicly argued that the site has abandoned its neutrality policy, adopting a left-wing, "establishment" perspective. He claims this bias is present in articles on topics like abortion, drug legalization, and political figures like Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
- Sentiment Analysis: A 2024 analysis using AI suggested that articles often express more positive sentiment towards left-leaning politicians compared to their right-leaning counterparts.
- Content Evolution: Some studies indicate that while articles may start with a stronger bias, this slant can diminish over time, though many articles still retain a,.
- Defense of Neutrality: Jimmy Wales, another co-founder, has argued that Wikipedia strives to represent all significant, verifiable viewpoints, noting that,
About the source
This overview was generated with the help of AI. It’s supported by info from across the web and Google’s Knowledge Graph, a collection of info about people, places, and things. Generative AI is a work in progress and info quality may vary. For help evaluating content, you can visit the provided links. Learn more about how AI Overviews work and how data helps Google develop AI in Search.
Which is reviewed for non-sensitive topics. Sensitive topics are locked.
You wrote a few sentences and I have a greater than 1st grade reading level. You and I both know you'd cry fake news. If put up a new source and you want to attack the validity of it. New generally has one individual writing moderated by one single editor who needs to "sell" the news by appealing to a specific demographic. Wikipedia has a community of writers with a multitude of editors.
Nice try.
There is no credible evidence to suggest that Donald Trump is gay. Rumors about his sexuality are largely based on speculation, often stemming from controversial emails released from the Jeffrey Epstein files that have been widely debunked as a basis for such a claim by those involved. -Google AI
See? I wanted enough about Trump being gay. There is no credible evidence but there is evidence, including CONTROVERSIAL EMAILS FROM THE JEFFREY EPSTEIN FILES.
See? I wanted enough about Trump being gay. There is no credible evidence but there is evidence, including CONTROVERSIAL EMAILS FROM THE JEFFREY EPSTEIN FILES.
You omitted the full policy in that regard.
Google AI,does Wikipedia lock sensitive topics:
Yes, Wikipedia restricts (or "locks") editing on sensitive, controversial, or highly targeted subjects to prevent vandalism and edit wars. While anyone can typically edit, these articles may be temporarily or permanently protected, requiring users to have established accounts, high edit counts, or administrative status to make changes
Wiki has fact checkers too.
Google AI question: can the public edit wikipedia
Yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia, as it's built on the principle of open collaboration, allowing registered users and anonymous editors (using their IP address) to add or change content, but edits must follow strict policies on neutrality, verifiability, and avoiding original research, with systems in place to combat vandalism and ensure quality.
How it works
- Anyone can edit:
You don't need an account to make changes, though creating one offers more privacy (your IP is hidden from most users).
- Community oversight:
A large community of volunteer editors, some with special administrator privileges, monitors changes, reverting vandalism and ensuring articles meet standards.
- Policies:
Edits must adhere to key rules, including:- Neutral Point of View (NPOV): Summarize differing views proportionally, don't take sides.
- Verifiability: Use reliable published sources; no original research or personal opinions.
- No Conflict of Interest (COI): Avoid editing articles about yourself, family, or employers.
- Protection:
Highly vandalized or controversial pages (like those for celebrities or major events) are often "protected," requiring logged-in users or administrators to edit them.
- Dispute Resolution:
If you disagree with an edit, you discuss it on the article's Talk Page, using the {{Edit COI}} template if you have a conflict of interest, explains Wikipedia:Editing a page about you.
- Anyone can edit:
- Find an article: Look for a topic you know about.
- Use the edit link: Click the "Edit" tab on the page.
- Follow the rules: Ensure your changes are neutral, cited with reliable sources, and not personal opinion or promotion.
- Use the Teahouse: For help, visit the Wikipedia:The Teahouse for guidance from experienced editors.
I didn't try anything. But you did.
Your presumption regarding fake news is a red herring so to avoid the fact that you didn't read the article I linked. You avoid that matter repeatedly. Which is odd.
There's no question at all that Donald was smack dab in the middle of everything Epstein. That's why his name is in the files far more than anyone else, and it's why he's fighting so hard to hide them. The latest drop was a joke. The Epstein Transparency Act says no names are to be redacted simply because it might cause them embarrassment or political damage. Yet, they redacted nearly all of them. There's still 3 million more files that are supposed to be released but they're hiding them. Whatever Donald was up to, he thinks the revelations in the files would be worse than his obvious coverup.