Wikipedia is the world's most popular research portal with over 18 billion views a month, but what if everything you thought you knew about Wikipedia was wrong? What if the platform wasn't actually for you, the common person? Is it really for you?
00:00:01.000According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black Americans commit 28% of crimes against Asian victims, which is a higher proportion than any other race.
00:01:33.000And that's really what we're dealing with on Wikipedia.
00:01:37.000If only one version of the facts is allowed, then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like So today, we wanted to test if Wikipedia does in fact push an agenda with the article.
00:02:05.000We'll show you an article with a left-wing bias.
00:02:08.000And to be clear, on Wikipedia, this bias is... You've heard me talk about this with CNN.
00:02:12.000It's more comparable to CNN than, say, MSNBC.
00:02:15.000It's a bias by omission, often completely omitting facts that would run counter to a more leftist narrative, and sometimes those are the only facts and they'll include conjecture in its place.
00:02:29.000Then we'll show you the changes that We've made, and we've been doing this over the course of weeks here at Louder With Crowder, with multiple accounts, and we will show you Wikipedia's response to the changes that we've made.
00:02:42.000Before we get to that experiment, a little bit of debunking is in order.
00:04:30.000Yeah, I mean this is the kind of guy who would read books and correct them with a red pen and send them back to the author, and that's the person who's editing your Wikipedia page.
00:04:40.000Meanwhile, yours has ten edits, which I bet anybody can make.
00:05:24.000In a study on wiki administrators, researchers from Virginia Tech reported, we find a surprisingly large number of editors who change their behavior and begin focusing more on a particular controversial topic once they are promoted to administrator status.
00:05:42.000Someone's writing, Dave is dressed like a guy who went to Virginia Tech in 2007.
00:05:47.000Right, well that's why we referenced their paper.
00:05:49.000Now Wikipedia itself, it defines the administrators as censors whose duties include deletion of articles deemed unsuitable, we'll get to that, protecting pages, restricting editing privilege to that page, and blocking the accounts of disruptive Users so here's the thing before we get to the changes that we made and what what changes were deemed acceptable Spoiler alert not many.
00:06:16.000I just don't want to tell you how it's none They're supposed to be neutral, these editors.
00:06:22.000So we actually are going to take the Wikipedia neutrality test.
00:07:33.000I just hit the answer, it says, hold on a second, can you guess which of the following passages comply with... That's what happened, right?
00:08:35.000Extensive investigation into vaccines and autism has shown that there is no relationship between the two, causal or otherwise, and that vaccine ingredients do not cause autism.
00:08:47.000I'm going to guess that this is a neutral point of view.
00:08:51.000I'm guessing that's from Jenny McCarthy's apology page.
00:09:09.000Wikipedia does not give undue weight to, quote, fringe theories not supported by reliable sources like the idea that vaccines cause autism.
00:09:17.000This passage is an appropriate summary of the scholarship on the topic.
00:09:31.000I mean, it's... I mean, they have... I don't know anything about baseball, but from what I understand, they're like the winningest team in sports history.
00:09:37.000I mean, if you want to include all the way from back when the great Bambino played, you know, all the way to... When blacks weren't allowed.
00:10:15.000Peacock language, which it is best to avoid.
00:10:18.000It should just read which is best to avoid.
00:10:20.000You should show instead of tell using verifiable facts.
00:10:26.000It would be much better to write instead The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships, almost three times as many as any other team.
00:11:04.000In 2017, Facebook partnered with fact-checkers from Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network to identify and mark false content, though most ads from political candidates are exempt from this program.
00:11:19.000Critics of the program accuse Facebook of not doing enough to remove false information from its website.
00:11:24.000I don't know, I guess they'll say neutral.
00:11:45.000So the entire thing that was an opinion is actually neutral, and then the other one that was fact, you know, like the Yankees are a baseball team, is somehow incorrect.
00:11:54.000The problem is that they're one of the greatest baseball players.
00:12:43.000According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis.
00:12:52.000I've got to imagine they'll claim this is neutral because it's providing two different points of view.
00:14:26.000There's one administrator with 900 edits like, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm This page was edited by Camilla.
00:14:44.000It says, even though her death is almost universally considered tragic, using the word tragic is still an inappropriate instance of editorializing.
00:14:53.000Instead, use facts to convey the public response, such as media attention and public mourning were extensive after her death, and an estimated 2.5 billion people watched her televised funeral.
00:15:04.000Well, I guess you can agree because maybe it was the Queen of England who edited the page and she was like, I don't really care.
00:15:12.000I just wave like this and don't really care she's dead.
00:15:14.000You should see what she says about Merkel.
00:17:19.000If we're going to use the same standard as the Princess Diana, almost universally regarded as tragic, this is to a degree unprecedented, doesn't even couch it with almost, in American politics.
00:17:30.000Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.
00:17:39.000According to Wikipedia, it says, Wikipedia's content should reflect that of reliable sources, even when it differs from a view held by a large portion of the general public.
00:17:48.000Well, this also happens to reflect the view of reliable sources with Brian Stelter.
00:17:53.000Yes, well, but that's stated entirely as an opinion.
00:18:05.000They're a little biased is what we're driving at.
00:18:07.000Now that we've done the neutrality quiz, let's start with my very own page, where Wikipedia, here's the thing, I hadn't actually read this page ever.
00:18:56.000What we believe, according to their own guidelines, to be unfair, non-neutral pages.
00:19:04.000Edits that we've made, which would be more objective, more academic, more in line with what they claim they want, we'll see what they accept.
00:19:11.000So, on my page, before the edit, Bloomberg claimed to have found a researcher from Stanford Who said this, and this is on the page, while Crowder stays away from expressing white nationalism directly, well that's very generous of him, his channel has, quote, some of the most overt racism of any of the shows I've ever looked at.
00:19:32.000First off, this is just a grad student who ended the phrase in a preposition, and that's on Wikipedia, and I'm amazed that this is considered a reliable source.
00:20:12.000So we rewrote it to abide by Wikipedia's own neutral point of view guidelines.
00:20:18.000And by the way, didn't even remove the attack about it being considered racially charged to some people.
00:20:27.000You really gave him a lot of leverage.
00:20:28.000Yes, yeah, for those who don't have a sense of humor.
00:20:30.000So, we edited it to, while Crowder stays away from white nationalism directly, his channel does contain language that may be considered overtly racial or racist.
00:20:43.000In comparison to, while Crowder stays away from expressing white nationalism directly, his channel has, quote, some of the most overt racism of any of the shows I've ever looked at.
00:20:52.000He has ever looked at Did he write, add, or just use the symbol?
00:20:57.000Some people may consider it overtly racial or racially charged.
00:21:00.000Did he write it or just use the symbol?
00:21:02.000You know, I don't know how many edits there have been in this sentence.
00:21:05.000I think it doesn't always show you the history.
00:22:29.000So somebody, though, who wanted to edit that COVID page, who actually has been, I don't know, in the virology field since, I don't know, say the 70s?
00:24:09.000There's no right-leaning source offering a counterbalancing opinion.
00:24:14.000If this is going to be the number one research portal in the world, 18 billion views per month, all we need to see is a counterbalance, which they claim in their own neutrality guidelines, right?
00:27:05.000So, this article has a section titled, Societal and Legal Attitudes.
00:27:12.000The only attitude mentioned though, I'm reading this, is the one in favor of hormone blockers and genital Mm-hmm.
00:27:20.000So this is before the edit that we made.
00:27:22.000Wikipedia writes, for individuals who are minors, if their parents consent, they are able to begin receiving puberty blockers at a young age and later receive cross-sex hormones and then transitional surgeries upon 18 years of age.
00:27:38.000The fact that that, I mean, that I just read that out loud and it's not disturbing to some of you, and certainly not the editors at Wikipedia, is a Probably everything wrong with Western civilization.
00:27:50.000But how are you going to hit 18 when you killed yourself at 15?
00:27:54.000Well, I think it's sort of one of those riddles.
00:31:47.000Now remember, keep in mind, remember how there was some disagreement over his primary cause of death.
00:31:53.000No one here is saying that there wasn't some kind of police misconduct.
00:31:57.000No one here is saying that it didn't necessarily also act as a confounding factor to the death, but there absolutely was some disagreement over the primary cause of death.
00:32:10.000The Wikipedia article dismisses the other more likely primary causes of death if you watch the court case.
00:32:16.000For example, advanced heart disease, fentanyl, COVID-19, which we'll take us to the COVID-19 page in a little bit.
00:32:24.000So Wikipedia wrote, the medical examiner found Floyd's heart stopped due to, quote, law enforcement subdual restraint and neck compression, though fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use may have increased the likelihood of death.
00:32:38.000Now, to give you some context, on the other side of the coin here, the prosecution, right, they tried to debunk the idea that drugs played a significant role, or even a primary role, in George Floyd's death, claiming that Floyd's body, I don't know if you remember this, had processed a lot of fentanyl, so it couldn't have been an overdose because he had taken it likely over a long period of time.
00:33:09.000The prosecution's point fails to consider that a person who dies of overdose may have also consumed and processed the substance on more than one occasion, i.e.
00:33:18.000prior to the potentially fatal dose, and relies on the presupposition that there was only one administration of fentanyl.
00:33:27.000Now, there's nothing that can be argued about that, empirically, medically.
00:33:31.000And if you've watched the trial, you know that these arguments were made on both sides.
00:33:35.000So, again, we're talking about neutrality.
00:33:37.000Wherever you line up, you need to include these points of view, and you certainly need to include arguments made on the legal record and with medical substantiation.
00:35:02.000Who determines consensus on Wikipedia?
00:35:05.000The same people who determine consensus on Facebook, Google, Twitter, And by the way, these people who determine consensus, these are the same people who determine the fact-checkers that are used in legacy media.
00:35:16.000So what's scary is when you have a very small group of people who are forming a consensus, and then they are saying, no opposing point of view from outside of our consensus is allowed, because we've already achieved consensus.
00:35:29.000This is the most terrifying response you can get, because that's a response that can be used for anything, and it's a response that Wikipedia, or in another case, Facebook, YouTube, Google, Alphabet, Well, just to gain control and to get your agenda out.
00:35:46.000It really has nothing to do with... that's absurd.
00:36:28.000After the edit, we offered the Attorney General's views on this issue.
00:36:33.000Quote, Attorney General Mark Baranovich stated that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors violated state law by not complying with election audit subpoena.
00:37:09.000According to the Arizona Statute 41-1153, Disobedience of Subpoena as Legislative Contempt, if a witness neglects or refuses to obey a legislative subpoena, or appearing neglects or refuses to testify, the Senate or House may, by resolution entered in the journal, commit him for contempt.
00:37:30.000What did Wikipedia say to this addition?
00:37:34.000The only edition that would actually have legal standing, by the way, they took it down, saying, it might be true, but no secondary source.
00:39:17.000After the edit, we contributed some crime statistics, not just an anecdotal story or 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 stores, but empirical evidence.
00:39:27.000So, we actually included black on Asian crime statistics, though it might appear that much of this is driven by Trump's messaging about COVID's Chinese origin.
00:39:37.000A 2008 San Francisco Police Department survey found 85% of physical assault crimes consisted of a black attacker and an Asian victim.
00:39:46.000This suggests that Asian hate is neither a new nor mostly white phenomenon.
00:39:50.000By the way, references all available at latosprada.com.
00:39:52.000You can click the link in the description.
00:39:55.000According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black Americans commit 28% of crimes against Asian victims, which is a higher proportion than any other race.
00:40:07.000That's from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
00:40:10.000I don't know about the consensus, Well, the consensus feels there's more whites.
00:40:17.000They took this down, they took the contribution down, this is not a joke, saying that it quote, again, the Bureau of Justice, referenced quote an opinion piece all not a statistical fact that that that that that that that that that that that that that that that that that made from cameras all over new york city and that's the idea of a lot of the way of the miracle because uh... faces the law we have another source call the courthouse dipshit i mean it's not that hard to do how well we know how lazy are and then this one the bureau of justice statistics it's an opinion piece
00:41:12.000This was the shooting last year where a Syrian-born gunman, and we, by the way, we included this because they mentioned, you know, the white shooter at the Asian massage parlor.
00:41:39.000So before our edit that we added, the article failed to include all of the celebrities and the politicians, like Rashida Tlaib, by the way, who called for an end to white supremacy before they knew that the shooter was not white.
00:41:52.000Kind of like Wikipedia is still doing the white, you know, stop Asian hate.
00:41:55.000But this was, for people who don't remember, this was everywhere, right?
00:41:59.000Well, and to be honest, anytime there's a shooter at this point because they won't show who they are if they're not white, they immediately jump on that it's a white guy.
00:42:07.000But here's the thing, you may not like The fact that we're pointing... But this does matter for historical context, right?
00:42:13.000People, if they're going to look back on this shooting, and Wikipedia includes aftermath of the shooting, well, some of the most significant aftermath was immediately afterward, if you looked at the social media trends, condemning the shooter as a white supremacist.
00:42:26.000We included even a tweet from Rashida Tlaib on the subject, quote, we need courage to take on white supremacy plus gun violence.
00:43:46.000Now, most of the DeSantis article, if you go to Wikipedia, it includes and emphasizes sort of what you would call the lowlights of the trajectory in Florida, right?
00:43:57.000Trying to make it seem as though Florida has done worse than average in the pandemic.
00:44:02.000Again, in the spirit of balance, we just conducted the neutrality test at Wikipedia.
00:44:07.000They talk about requiring a counterbalance.
00:44:10.000We added some high points for Florida, for example.
00:44:13.000As of January 19th, Florida's hospitalization rate was half that of Washington, D.C., and it had fallen to 12th in the nation, behind states such as New York and Maryland, which still have mask mandates in place.
00:45:30.000For those of you who don't remember, this is the Texas abortion bill in relation to a child's heartbeat.
00:45:35.000Now, the article, we're talking about Wikipedia, gives criticism to the bill.
00:45:42.000But it entirely ignores any of the pro-life sentiment or the potential benefit.
00:45:48.000So I get that if you're pro-abortion, and I get that, and by the way, we're past the point of, well, it's not a life when you're talking about a heartbeat, right?
00:45:54.000That's the heartbeat bill, regardless of where you line up.
00:45:56.000However, I understand that you are going to describe this as a bill that a good portion of you won't like.
00:46:05.000But you still do need to in the form, in the spirit of balance, Here's the issue.
00:46:14.000If this happened to be the historical record, and let's say our children's children are reading back on, what's the Texas heartbeat bill?
00:46:25.000And nowhere in the records does it show the reason for the bill.
00:46:31.000The reason to protect life after a heartbeat, notably that this was in the wake of some radically pro-abortion legislation that had taken place in Virginia.
00:46:41.000If you don't state the reason for it, then people won't understand their history.
00:46:57.000But you need to learn why they did it.
00:46:59.000I learned about the Treaty of Versailles.
00:47:00.000I learned about why Hitler, why Germany felt embarrassed in the world stage.
00:47:03.000So that you understand it and you try, in going forward, have a better grasp of historical context.
00:47:10.000In this case, talks about the bill, how bad it is, criticizes it, doesn't include any pro-life sentiment or any reasons that this bill might exist with potential benefits.
00:47:19.000So, before our edit, they wrote this from the University of Texas at Austin.
00:47:24.000The bill would prohibit 80% of abortions in Texas and would disproportionately affect black women, lower-income women, and women who live far away from facilities that provide abortion care.
00:47:54.000Saying this would affect black women and poor women more and people who don't have an Uber account to get the right stirrup cuddles.
00:48:05.000Right, we decided to include descriptive clinical language from other sources.
00:48:15.000Quote, the bill would prohibit 80% of abortions in Texas and would disproportionately affect black women, lower income women, so we included all of this, and women who live far away from facilities that are more prepared to offer procedures for later term abortions such as dilation and evacuation.
00:48:30.000This procedure differs from intact dilation and extraction and is characterized by the cervix being dilated while the fetus and all other products of conception are removed via suction, though sometimes requiring the dismemberment of the fetus prior to extraction.
00:48:44.000That is the medical procedure that would be occurring at those facilities.
00:50:19.000However, if you have a source which clearly leans a specific direction, but vehemently denies it, and creates an entire set of rules, guidelines, and regulations that are, of course, all self-imposed, self-perpetuating, in order to cloak their bias, it can't be a research tool.
00:50:42.000It's an impossibility to use it as a research tool.
00:50:46.000People who complain about echo chambers don't often complain.
00:50:50.000Why aren't they complaining about Wikipedia?
00:51:20.000So in other words, if we read an article, let's say, in a publication, whether it's New York Times, whether it's USA Today, whether it's Washington Post, let's say it's about COVID and some new research, we always will go to the original research paper.
00:51:30.000So usually you might end up finding that at PubMed, right?
00:51:32.000Or some kind of published clinical medical journal.
00:51:36.000Then we cross-reference it with the left perspective, and the right perspective, what they're saying about this issue.
00:51:43.000And then we try and provide those sources to you.
00:51:45.000If they're reporting the same thing, but with different opinions on, let's say, the outcome or the method, it's generally pretty safe to assume that it's true.
00:51:56.000And this is a tool that I wish had been out there when I was in school.
00:51:59.000So, lotterywithcrowder.com, you can click the link below.
00:52:03.000Also, by the way, leave a like, comment below.
00:52:06.000I don't want to use the word expose when you're in that jacket.
00:52:08.000Wikipedia because that helps. This is a data pool. There are millions of you out there
00:52:13.000and the more you provide, the more robust our research can be. Here's one thing too
00:52:18.000though, before I go, I have one more aspect of Wikipedia to...
00:52:22.000I don't want to use the word expose when you're in that jacket. Oh, I'll expose
00:52:27.000myself later. I like to go to the mall and just see what happens.