Wikipedia seems pretty good to me--though I'm sure Gell-Mann amnesia plays a role in that--so long as nothing about the entry in question impinges on any political, cultural, or intellectual obsession of the progressive left. But any entry about anything that does so impinge cannot be trusted.
Just one semi-peripheral comment: Charles Sander Peirce is almost certainly America's greatest philosopher--and, arguably, its only truly great one. Peirce's interests were wide-ranging, but here's something he wasn't interested in: race. However, a few years ago 7% of the entry on Peirce was devoted to his alleged views of race--an obsession of the contemporary left...but not, in any way, of Peirce's. In one place he uses a syllogism that mentions the race of the imaginary subject of the syllogism. He says nothing at all about race itself, and nothing derogatory about any race. And yet--because the left controls Wikipedia and the left is obsessed with race, nearly 10% of the entry was devoted to that topic. Whole paragraphs were wasted on the fact that his family were Southern sympathizers...though, again, Peirce barely mentions this and it seemed to be of little importance to him.
Just one example of such bias...there are hundreds more egregious examples.
No comments:
Post a Comment