Louder with Crowder - EXPOSED: Wikipedia’s Bias Tested and PROVEN! | Louder with Crowder

00:00:00.000 We also included this.

00:00:01.000 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black Americans commit 28% of crimes against Asian victims, which is a higher proportion than any other race.

00:00:12.000 Do you know what they did? 0.97

00:00:14.000 Added more whites.

00:00:15.000 They took this down.

00:00:16.000 They took the contribution down.

00:00:17.000 This is not a joke.

00:00:20.000 Saying that it referenced, quote, an opinion piece.

00:00:24.000 Oh, not a statistical fact.

00:00:26.000 Not a statistical fact from the Bureau of Justice.

00:00:31.000 So you probably know that Wikipedia is the number one research tool portal in the world with over 18 billion views a month.

00:00:39.000 But what if everything you thought you knew about Wikipedia was wrong?

00:00:45.000 I bet it is.

00:00:48.000 I'm Nat Geo.

00:00:49.000 Yeah.

00:00:50.000 Okay, Goofy.

00:00:51.000 The platform... Is it really for you?

00:00:54.000 That's okay.

00:00:55.000 We're gonna keep going.

00:00:55.000 What if the platform wasn't actually for you.

00:00:59.000 By that I mean the common person.

00:01:01.000 Is it?

00:01:02.000 Can that case even be made anymore?

00:01:03.000 Is it for you?

00:01:04.000 Well, one of the co-founders, Larry Sanger, doesn't seem to think so.

00:01:08.000 When we are getting the news, when we are learning,

00:01:13.000 or when we are just trying to get some basic information, we being free individuals want to make up our own minds.

00:01:22.000 And if we don't, then there's something wrong with us, I think.

00:01:26.000 In fact, in situations in which that happens, well, the word for it is propaganda,

00:01:32.000 when it's systematic.

00:01:33.000 And that's really what we're dealing with on Wikipedia.

00:01:37.000 If 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.

00:02:03.000 So we created an account.

00:02:04.000 And here's what we'll do.

00:02:05.000 We'll show you an article with a left-wing bias.

00:02:08.000 And to be clear, on Wikipedia, this bias is... You've heard me talk about this with CNN.

00:02:12.000 It's more comparable to CNN than, say, MSNBC.

00:02:15.000 It'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.

00:02:29.000 Then 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.

00:02:42.000 Before we get to that experiment, a little bit of debunking is in order.

00:02:48.000 Yes, we need to debunk.

00:02:51.000 Do you want the blue pill or the red pill?

00:02:54.000 They're both GHB. 0.58

00:02:55.000 Yeah, I thought that we weren't supposed to use it anymore after John Stamos.

00:03:00.000 Oh, in the Matrix, 1999, it's important we all dress as school shooters.

00:03:05.000 That's back when the, uh... Neo was a hero.

00:03:08.000 Wachowski sisters were the Wachowski... Brothers.

00:03:11.000 Brothers.

00:03:12.000 Then they were siblings. 0.97

00:03:13.000 Then the other one said, I, too, am cr***y. But then the new movie... 0.91

00:03:19.000 They only one of them directed because they could both agree on switching genders but not agree on the script.

00:03:25.000 So Wikipedia describes itself as... I'm getting rid of that.

00:03:31.000 You'd need them in the Matrix!

00:03:33.000 Yeah, I don't think I need stelter goggles for packing.

00:03:35.000 You need forehead goggles.

00:03:37.000 Wikipedia describes itself as the free...

00:03:41.000 The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

00:03:44.000 Here's the thing.

00:03:45.000 Only some of the important topics can be edited by anyone.

00:03:49.000 Let me give you a few examples.

00:03:51.000 Pages like Steven Crowder.

00:03:53.000 Oh, okay.

00:03:54.000 That's me.

00:03:55.000 We're starting off with this one.

00:03:56.000 They have a semi-protected status.

00:03:58.000 I didn't know what that meant.

00:03:59.000 That means that editor accounts have to have at least 10 successful edits for them to be able to make any acceptable changes.

00:04:06.000 The Joe Biden and COVID-19 pages have extended protection.

00:04:12.000 That's a status, which means the editor account must be 30 days old and have 500 successful edits.

00:04:18.000 Who does 500 edits on Wikipedia?

00:04:20.000 No one does.

00:04:22.000 So basically it's an untouchable page.

00:04:24.000 Effectively.

00:04:24.000 Without them saying it.

00:04:25.000 Yeah, unless you're a psychopath who spends all your days editing Wikipedia. 0.82

00:04:29.000 Well, there's probably one guy.

00:04:30.000 Yeah, 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.

00:04:40.000 Meanwhile, yours has ten edits, which I bet anybody can make.

00:04:42.000 Yes, exactly!

00:04:43.000 Very blanket, where it's like, Alfalfa was in Little Rascals.

00:04:46.000 They're like, yeah, he's right.

00:04:48.000 Nine more of these, he can write whatever he wants.

00:04:50.000 Buckwheat said, okay!

00:04:52.000 Yeah.

00:04:53.000 Here you go.

00:04:54.000 You can say whatever you want about anyone.

00:04:55.000 These pages are your oyster.

00:04:57.000 Now here's one that's even scarier.

00:04:58.000 The COVID-19 Pandemic in Mainland China page, that's a page, has full protection status.

00:05:05.000 What does that mean?

00:05:05.000 It means you have to be an administrator to edit.

00:05:09.000 Only 1,000 editors are granted administrator status.

00:05:14.000 So you have to be knighted in order to touch that page. 0.54

00:05:17.000 Anthony Hopkins edits the shit out of it. 0.50

00:05:22.000 Sir Paul McCartney.

00:05:24.000 In 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.

00:05:42.000 Someone's writing, Dave is dressed like a guy who went to Virginia Tech in 2007.

00:05:47.000 Right, well that's why we referenced their paper.

00:05:49.000 Important.

00:05:49.000 Now 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.

00:06:16.000 I just don't want to tell you how it's none They're supposed to be neutral, these editors.

00:06:22.000 So we actually are going to take the Wikipedia neutrality test.

00:06:27.000 Right.

00:06:27.000 To see if we have what it takes.

00:06:29.000 Well, I would imagine disruptive users sort of go against their philosophies, less than just harass people.

00:06:35.000 I guess we're about to be disruptors in the tech space.

00:06:38.000 Oh?

00:06:39.000 Okay, neutrality time.

00:06:48.000 The quiz starts with, can you guess which of the following passages comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy?

00:06:56.000 Gotcha.

00:06:57.000 In 1958 Mao Zedong launched the Great Leap Forward that aimed to rapidly transform China's economy from agrarian to industrial.

00:07:05.000 However, his cruel disregard for the lives of his citizens led to the deadliest famine

00:07:10.000 in history and the deaths of 20 to 46 million people between 1958 and 1962." 0.83

00:07:16.000 Well, it's asking me which of these...

00:07:21.000 It seems that would be a neutral...

00:07:23.000 That's one passage.

00:07:25.000 One of them is supposed to...

00:07:27.000 Oh, okay.

00:07:29.000 It's saying not neutral.

00:07:31.000 What is, how does this test work?

00:07:32.000 Is it not neutral?

00:07:33.000 I 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?

00:07:40.000 Oh, okay, so all of these.

00:07:41.000 All of these, I'm just gonna say if it's neutral or not neutral.

00:07:43.000 Okay, this says not neutral.

00:07:45.000 The information here is fine, but the characterization of Mao is not.

00:07:52.000 Oh, so they have an opinion on him killing people.

00:07:54.000 It says, cruel disregard for the lives of his citizens is an opinion and should not be stated as fact.

00:08:01.000 Didn't this guy have a torture chamber?

00:08:02.000 Am I wrong about that?

00:08:06.000 No, you're right about that.

00:08:07.000 Oh, okay.

00:08:08.000 And if you look up, Hitler didn't care for Jews, also an opinion piece. 0.99

00:08:12.000 Yes, well, look, it's not that he didn't care for Jews, he just He killed them. 0.97

00:08:17.000 We don't know why he killed them. 0.96

00:08:19.000 He could have liked them.

00:08:20.000 A lot.

00:08:21.000 He could have had a crush on them.

00:08:22.000 You ever love someone to death?

00:08:24.000 It's an expression.

00:08:25.000 Like when you're mean to a girl because you like her.

00:08:27.000 She's mean to you.

00:08:28.000 He just exterminated 6 million girls.

00:08:31.000 Zycon D interface.

00:08:32.000 You know what I'm saying.

00:08:33.000 You dig it.

00:08:34.000 So here's another one.

00:08:35.000 Extensive 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.

00:08:47.000 I'm going to guess that this is a neutral point of view.

00:08:51.000 I'm guessing that's from Jenny McCarthy's apology page.

00:08:54.000 Well she has 700 edits.

00:08:55.000 Does she really?

00:08:56.000 Like I said, it's idle hands.

00:08:56.000 Yeah.

00:09:03.000 Did she just go back?

00:09:04.000 She's like, she's one of the thousand.

00:09:06.000 I'm gonna guess this is considered neutral.

00:09:08.000 Answer!

00:09:09.000 Neutral!

00:09:09.000 Wikipedia does not give undue weight to, quote, fringe theories not supported by reliable sources like the idea that vaccines cause autism.

00:09:17.000 This passage is an appropriate summary of the scholarship on the topic.

00:09:21.000 Alright!

00:09:22.000 Here's another statement.

00:09:23.000 OK, the New York Yankees are one of the greatest baseball teams in history.

00:09:27.000 You think that's neutral or not?

00:09:29.000 No, it's true.

00:09:30.000 I mean, yeah, it's neutral.

00:09:31.000 I 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.

00:09:37.000 I 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. 0.93

00:09:37.000 They are. 0.93

00:09:44.000 Right. 1.00

00:09:45.000 And then, well, then blacks came in and they were like, wow, we've got to get rid of these fat white guys. 0.99

00:09:49.000 Um, but yeah, if you look at it, New York is, they're not, you know, they're the moneyball team, sort of. 0.98

00:09:54.000 But they are a great team, they've always been a great team.

00:09:56.000 One of the greatest baseball teams in history, right?

00:09:58.000 Let's see, I'm gonna, I'm gonna guess, I'm going to guess that they say not neutral.

00:10:01.000 Ah, not neutral!

00:10:02.000 Why?

00:10:02.000 It says, calling something the greatest is an example of peacock language.

00:10:07.000 Which it is best to avoid.

00:10:09.000 It should just say which is best to avoid.

00:10:11.000 Hey, how about the grammar neutral quiz Wikipedia says?

00:10:14.000 But it's statistics!

00:10:15.000 Peacock language, which it is best to avoid.

00:10:18.000 It should just read which is best to avoid.

00:10:20.000 You should show instead of tell using verifiable facts.

00:10:26.000 It 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.

00:10:36.000 Oh, you know what you could do?

00:10:37.000 You could sum that down to one of the greatest.

00:10:40.000 Yeah, well...

00:10:41.000 Different strokes.

00:10:42.000 So basically it just comes down to language?

00:10:45.000 Which they use horribly in their description.

00:10:48.000 Yeah, if you state the exact fact of what you meant, it means the same, but that's wrong.

00:10:53.000 Greatest is just, it's a subjective term.

00:10:55.000 More wins, three times more wins than the next team.

00:10:58.000 Well, you say tomato, I say pendants.

00:11:01.000 Yep.

00:11:02.000 Alright, here's another one.

00:11:04.000 In 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.

00:11:19.000 Critics of the program accuse Facebook of not doing enough to remove false information from its website.

00:11:24.000 I don't know, I guess they'll say neutral.

00:11:28.000 Neutral!

00:11:28.000 Yep.

00:11:29.000 This is a good example of how to note that a prominent point of view exists.

00:11:32.000 Appropriate, without taking that point of view in Wikipedia's voice.

00:11:36.000 I just thought the whole thing was no one was supposed to think that Wikipedia had a voice.

00:11:36.000 Inappropriate.

00:11:40.000 It's... I thought the entire... Well, yeah, that's what neutral would be.

00:11:43.000 Right.

00:11:43.000 So it wouldn't have an angle.

00:11:45.000 So 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.

00:11:54.000 The problem is that they're one of the greatest baseball players.

00:11:56.000 Well, I think they're notable.

00:11:57.000 Yeah, I would certainly.

00:11:58.000 I mean, if not the team that has won more than any other team, and it's not even close, what does it say?

00:12:06.000 It says they've won, what?

00:12:07.000 I don't even know anything about baseball.

00:12:08.000 Well, in that case... Three times as many as any other team.

00:12:13.000 Would they fact check Muhammad Ali?

00:12:15.000 Everybody knows I'm the greatest!

00:12:17.000 I'm so pretty!

00:12:18.000 The fact is, he is not the greatest, and pretty is a subjective term.

00:12:21.000 That's very true.

00:12:22.000 And he also can't move like a butterfly.

00:12:24.000 Or sting like, well he can sting like a bee.

00:12:26.000 He'd probably sting like a bee.

00:12:27.000 He probably hurt worse than a bee.

00:12:28.000 He didn't punch very hard.

00:12:29.000 No.

00:12:30.000 So he'd be like, ow, bee sting!

00:12:31.000 Okay.

00:12:32.000 Can we go to the Detroit Lions page and just change that to they try super good and hard?

00:12:38.000 Well, that's what it is, though. 0.99

00:12:39.000 I think it's just one word, sucks. 0.98

00:12:40.000 It's a team I enjoy. 0.97

00:12:43.000 Here's another statement.

00:12:43.000 According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis.

00:12:52.000 I've got to imagine they'll claim this is neutral because it's providing two different points of view.

00:12:56.000 Well, yeah, I guess.

00:12:57.000 Not neutral!

00:12:59.000 David Irving is a Holocaust denier, a fringe viewpoint that should not be given parity with the consensus among respected historians.

00:13:06.000 Well, okay!

00:13:07.000 But he does dispute the analysis.

00:13:09.000 So it's a fact that he does.

00:13:10.000 I'm sure Mel Gibson has his... If you said Mel Gibson has... You could have just changed this with Samuel Olsenthal.

00:13:15.000 According to Samuel Olsenthal, the Holocaust was a program of exterminating the Jewish people in Germany.

00:13:20.000 But Mel Gibson has his doubts.

00:13:23.000 It still would be neutral.

00:13:25.000 Yeah, because it's his opinion.

00:13:27.000 Right.

00:13:27.000 Which you're putting it into a thing where it's not Wikipedia's opinion, which goes against the one just before this.

00:13:32.000 Okay.

00:13:33.000 So it's not in Wikipedia's voice, though.

00:13:34.000 I think I see a trend here.

00:13:35.000 Which is Wikipedia's super neutral voice.

00:13:38.000 Here's another one.

00:13:38.000 Princess Diana died in a Paris hospital in 1997 after being injured in a tragic car crash.

00:13:44.000 Well, the neutral.

00:13:45.000 I would say neutral.

00:13:46.000 Not neutral!

00:13:48.000 Why, because she spiritually died months before?

00:13:51.000 Yeah, like a candle in the wind.

00:13:56.000 That's completely accurate.

00:13:57.000 There are no candles in the wind.

00:13:59.000 No.

00:13:59.000 They're extinguished.

00:14:00.000 They're former candles.

00:14:01.000 Well, if there's a candle in the wind, it's blown out.

00:14:03.000 Also, how many of you know that that song existed well before Princess Diana?

00:14:07.000 Is there anything more disrespectful than to just rehash a song?

00:14:10.000 Well, I mean, I'm sure he got the call and was like, uh, let me take this out of my mouth and I'll be there in five minutes.

00:14:17.000 So it says not neutral, even though her death is almost universally considered tragic.

00:14:22.000 Yes.

00:14:24.000 Almost universally considered tragic.

00:14:26.000 There's one administrator with 900 edits like, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm This page was edited by Camilla.

00:14:43.000 Oh, weird.

00:14:43.000 This was edited by Camilla.

00:14:44.000 It says, even though her death is almost universally considered tragic, using the word tragic is still an inappropriate instance of editorializing.

00:14:53.000 Instead, 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.

00:15:04.000 Well, 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.

00:15:12.000 I just wave like this and don't really care she's dead.

00:15:14.000 You should see what she says about Merkel.

00:15:17.000 Oh, she's not a fan.

00:15:18.000 She's not a fan.

00:15:19.000 They'd rather have flipper kids than mulattoes. 1.00

00:15:22.000 How is she still alive?

00:15:23.000 The Queen of England has looked the same since the 80s.

00:15:27.000 Well, I don't know.

00:15:27.000 I assume she's been pickled.

00:15:28.000 It says Cats received negative reviews from critics, true.

00:15:32.000 Who criticized the CGI effects, true.

00:15:34.000 Almost universal.

00:15:35.000 Plot and tone, true.

00:15:37.000 With many calling it one of the worst films of 2019.

00:15:40.000 Correct.

00:15:40.000 I've got to imagine this is going to be considered objective.

00:15:43.000 It's got to be.

00:15:44.000 It is!

00:15:44.000 It's neutral.

00:15:45.000 It's neutral.

00:15:46.000 Why is it neutral?

00:15:47.000 Wikipedia describes reputations indicating the relative prominence of different viewpoints.

00:15:51.000 When reputations are bad, Wikipedia should say so without employing false balance.

00:15:55.000 Without employing false balance!

00:15:56.000 But then you just went against Princess Diana and all these other ones against those same measures.

00:16:00.000 Yeah!

00:16:00.000 You said you can't say almost universally considered tragic.

00:16:03.000 I mean, I'm sure there's a few James Corden fans when we're talking about cats.

00:16:08.000 I would bet you there are more James Corden fans than people who support Princess Diana's death.

00:16:15.000 That came out of my mouth and I know I was wrong.

00:16:17.000 No, you could be incorrect.

00:16:19.000 I think way more people were sad about... No.

00:16:22.000 I think there were more people who were happy about Princess Diana's death, though very few, than there are James Corden fans.

00:16:26.000 There might be sad because he's on the air.

00:16:28.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

00:16:29.000 No, sad for him.

00:16:30.000 Because it's not like you have to watch the car accident four or five days a week.

00:16:34.000 No.

00:16:35.000 Well, I mean, it is a car accident.

00:16:36.000 Well, I mean, he did cause car accidents when he was running around like a mouse.

00:16:40.000 He was running around like a mouse in L.A.

00:16:41.000 traffic.

00:16:41.000 Yeah.

00:16:42.000 After he came out of his front door.

00:16:44.000 Also, he caused a car accident.

00:16:45.000 I totaled my car when I saw his Weight Watchers billboard.

00:16:48.000 That's true.

00:16:48.000 So I was like, why would that work?

00:16:49.000 Well, I was afraid it was going to fall on me.

00:16:51.000 Yeah, I get it.

00:16:51.000 I was like, why are you gaining weight and you're the spokesperson?

00:16:55.000 Doc must be counting a lot of points.

00:16:57.000 Three times as many as the next most successful Weight Watcher.

00:17:01.000 Yes.

00:17:02.000 One might say the greatest.

00:17:03.000 Wait, watcher.

00:17:04.000 Okay, here's a statement here.

00:17:06.000 We have to determine if it's neutral or not.

00:17:08.000 Donald Trump made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency to a degree unprecedented in American politics.

00:17:15.000 There you go.

00:17:16.000 To a degree unprecedented.

00:17:17.000 That seems...

00:17:19.000 If 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.

00:17:30.000 Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.

00:17:35.000 Well, that's not neutral at all.

00:17:36.000 It's not neutral, but it's neutral!

00:17:39.000 Oh, weird!

00:17:39.000 According 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.

00:17:48.000 Well, this also happens to reflect the view of reliable sources with Brian Stelter.

00:17:53.000 Yes, well, but that's stated entirely as an opinion.

00:17:57.000 It's not even written as fact.

00:17:59.000 I don't want to do any more of this test.

00:18:00.000 I think we've got, what's the next one?

00:18:02.000 William Shakespeare, widely considered to be one of the, yeah, this is enough.

00:18:05.000 You get it.

00:18:05.000 They're a little biased is what we're driving at.

00:18:07.000 Now 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.

00:18:18.000 Your own page?

00:18:18.000 No, I didn't read my page.

00:18:20.000 And then I just saw, it was Kevin here brought it to my attention, the, I would argue, mischaracterization That's subjective.

00:18:31.000 Oh, mine was attacked so much it was removed.

00:18:33.000 Really?

00:18:33.000 Yeah, for real.

00:18:35.000 Those are just lazy administrators.

00:18:36.000 They just didn't want a 501st edit.

00:18:39.000 No, yeah, I just kept reaching out to them and they were finally like, we're just taking it down.

00:18:42.000 Because we're Wikipedia. 0.99

00:18:44.000 Yeah, these, look at my dick, it's huge. 0.97

00:18:47.000 So we're actually going to keep a score here for you on screen with. 0.99

00:18:55.000 Peace.

00:18:56.000 What we believe, according to their own guidelines, to be unfair, non-neutral pages.

00:19:04.000 Edits 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.

00:19:11.000 So, 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.

00:19:32.000 First 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.

00:19:41.000 Just a grad student?

00:19:42.000 At Stanford?

00:19:43.000 Yeah.

00:19:44.000 I certainly hope he didn't graduate with a writing degree.

00:19:47.000 And just because he's right... Then we edited it.

00:19:51.000 It's a joke.

00:19:52.000 We re-write.

00:19:53.000 It wasn't meant to hurt you. 0.99

00:19:55.000 How did you find a grad student from Stanford to be a dick? 0.99

00:20:01.000 We couldn't get one from Harvard. 0.99

00:20:03.000 What did they do, ask the first person they saw when they walked on campus?

00:20:07.000 Brown wouldn't return Wikipedia's calls.

00:20:10.000 Ring ring.

00:20:10.000 Hello, Wikipedia?

00:20:11.000 No.

00:20:12.000 So we rewrote it to abide by Wikipedia's own neutral point of view guidelines.

00:20:18.000 And by the way, didn't even remove the attack about it being considered racially charged to some people.

00:20:27.000 You really gave him a lot of leverage.

00:20:28.000 Yes, yeah, for those who don't have a sense of humor.

00:20:30.000 So, 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.

00:20:43.000 In 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.

00:20:52.000 He has ever looked at Did he write, add, or just use the symbol?

00:20:57.000 Some people may consider it overtly racial or racially charged.

00:21:00.000 Did he write it or just use the symbol?

00:21:02.000 You know, I don't know how many edits there have been in this sentence.

00:21:05.000 I think it doesn't always show you the history.

00:21:06.000 Oh, that's true.

00:21:07.000 So, here's the response we received from the Wikipedia editor.

00:21:13.000 That you don't like the words of the cited source is neither here nor there.

00:21:19.000 It is not a violation of biography, of living persons, or any other policy to quote a recognized expert.

00:21:27.000 Recognized expert?

00:21:29.000 It's a grad student from Stanford and that's just taking Bloomberg's word for it and this grad student can't write!

00:21:37.000 Well, yeah.

00:21:38.000 Also, expert would mean that you're like, you have a doctorate or something?

00:21:42.000 Like, wouldn't it mean that you're in the field for a long time?

00:21:44.000 Interesting that you should bring that up.

00:21:46.000 Here was the response from one of my researchers who was working on this project.

00:21:49.000 This expert cited does not have their doctorate.

00:21:52.000 I myself am a doctoral candidate.

00:21:54.000 And, um...

00:21:56.000 The worst I've seen their statement is not an empirical statement, but anecdotal.

00:22:01.000 Yeah.

00:22:02.000 The Wikipedia editor responded, people without doctorates may be experts as well.

00:22:07.000 Well, hold on a second!

00:22:08.000 How are they an expert?

00:22:09.000 The point is, how are they an expert at all?

00:22:13.000 And how is this person not an expert?

00:22:16.000 And one is entirely subjective, and the other is empirical.

00:22:19.000 So we're just gonna put a big ol' 0 and 1 on the board.

00:22:23.000 That's a truth loss.

00:22:24.000 So that's a truth.

00:22:25.000 Zero wins with Wikipedia.

00:22:27.000 Wikipedia won.

00:22:29.000 So 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?

00:22:38.000 Yeah.

00:22:39.000 He's not technically an expert, but this student could be.

00:22:43.000 Technically, yes.

00:22:45.000 Okay, I just want to make sure I have that right.

00:22:46.000 Yes.

00:22:47.000 Good.

00:22:49.000 I don't know which pill that is.

00:22:50.000 That's the rainbow pill at that point.

00:22:52.000 Yes it is.

00:22:53.000 You mash the pills together and pick a gender. 0.54

00:22:55.000 Right.

00:22:56.000 Okay.

00:22:57.000 Here's one on minimum wage.

00:22:58.000 Getting away from me now.

00:23:00.000 And you.

00:23:01.000 It can't all be about us.

00:23:02.000 Minimum wage.

00:23:03.000 Here's the article on Wikipedia.

00:23:05.000 It's extremely biased.

00:23:06.000 It obviously favors the opinions.

00:23:08.000 And this is the problem too.

00:23:09.000 It's not just that you say there's an expert economist.

00:23:12.000 It's when you only provide points of view from one side of the aisle as it relates to economists.

00:23:18.000 You'll never get all economists to agree with one another.

00:23:22.000 That's actually a good thing.

00:23:23.000 That's a good thing.

00:23:23.000 That's how you maintain a robust economy with checks and balances.

00:23:26.000 Okay, so the Wikipedia page obviously favors increasing the minimum wage.

00:23:31.000 Before our edit, this is what it says.

00:23:34.000 According to economist Paul Krugman, I just threw up in my mouth a little.

00:23:39.000 It says, the great preponderance of evidence indicates that there is no negative impact

00:23:44.000 to employment from moderate increases on minimum wage.

00:23:48.000 Now, here's the thing.

00:23:50.000 Paul Krugman writes.

00:23:51.000 He's an economist.

00:23:52.000 I don't know how much he's helped the economy or run a business.

00:23:55.000 Well, realize that when you up pay, you have to up price.

00:24:00.000 You know, it's not important.

00:24:01.000 But he's an economist and you're not and I'm not, so, you know.

00:24:03.000 What do I know?

00:24:04.000 I've never paid for gas or food.

00:24:06.000 No, no, no, no, no.

00:24:07.000 Inflation's a good thing.

00:24:09.000 There's no right-leaning source offering a counterbalancing opinion.

00:24:14.000 If 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?

00:24:25.000 It's supposed to be neutral.

00:24:27.000 Okay, so we made an edit.

00:24:30.000 And it said, it just added another point of view, according to Thomas Sowell,

00:24:33.000 unfortunately the real minimum wage is always zero, regardless of the laws,

00:24:39.000 and that is the wage that many workers receive in the wake of the creation or escalation

00:24:44.000 of government-mandated minimum wage because they lose their jobs or fail to find jobs

00:24:49.000 when they enter the labor force.

00:24:51.000 So, Paul Krugman, you may love him.

00:24:53.000 I know.

00:24:54.000 Lots of Paul Krugman fans.

00:24:56.000 However, it would be hard to dispute the idea that there's a more qualified economist in the world today.

00:25:04.000 Then Thomas Sowell.

00:25:05.000 He's certainly up there.

00:25:06.000 All of his peers would respect him and he's done a lot of work on the minimum wage issue.

00:25:11.000 Now, this was removed.

00:25:13.000 If you want to know how they responded.

00:25:14.000 I would love to know how they responded.

00:25:16.000 The Thomas Sowell quote was removed within the day.

00:25:18.000 But he makes sense because if, look, if the price goes up for, if the wage goes up, then the price for what you need goes up.

00:25:25.000 You are making zero.

00:25:27.000 There's no difference.

00:25:28.000 It's just devaluing the dollar.

00:25:30.000 Which is why you could buy so many things in the 1950s for, I don't know, say, a nickel?

00:25:34.000 Right.

00:25:35.000 I just don't... Why would that be a bad... And you could lock someone in a refrigerator from the outside and they couldn't get out.

00:25:40.000 Like, wouldn't you rather be paid 75 cents an hour if it was worth way, way, way, way, way more?

00:25:46.000 Yeah!

00:25:47.000 I mean, that's sort of the point.

00:25:48.000 Then I would actually have a use for pennies other than sticking them in a... rolled up in a sock and hitting hobos on the subway.

00:25:53.000 Yes! 0.94

00:25:53.000 Or throwing them at drag queens. 0.94

00:25:54.000 Yep! 0.80

00:25:55.000 So this was removed... In a sock.

00:25:57.000 It was removed within the day.

00:25:58.000 Thomas Sowell, a quote.

00:25:59.000 By the way, Paul Krugman, quote.

00:26:01.000 We didn't try and remove that.

00:26:03.000 Just add a counterbalance.

00:26:05.000 Thomas Sowell, qualified.

00:26:06.000 Removed within the day.

00:26:07.000 Here's the response.

00:26:09.000 They claim the source was unreliable.

00:26:12.000 Hello, I'm Tyler Burden.

00:26:14.000 I noticed that you added or changed content to an article, minimum wage in the United States, but you didn't provide a reliable source.

00:26:24.000 Thomas Sowell.

00:26:25.000 Hey, by the way, just so you know, this is Thomas Sowell.

00:26:29.000 So now Wikipedia's racist.

00:26:33.000 I guess that's truth zero.

00:26:37.000 Wikipedia 2.

00:26:38.000 Lies. 0.99

00:26:39.000 We don't even need to say Wikipedia lies.

00:26:41.000 I think the way this is going is just truth on one side and Wikipedia on the other.

00:26:44.000 Yeah, I think you're right.

00:26:45.000 All right.

00:26:46.000 I'm going to start calling lies Wikipedias.

00:26:47.000 Yep.

00:26:48.000 Hey, listen, son.

00:26:49.000 I think you're Wikipedian, too.

00:26:50.000 What happened at school?

00:26:51.000 It doesn't matter.

00:26:52.000 We all tell little white Wikipedias.

00:26:54.000 Yes, we do.

00:26:55.000 But that one was a whopper of a Wikipedia.

00:26:56.000 It was.

00:26:58.000 Speaking of youth, speaking of little ones, let's go to this topic.

00:27:01.000 Oh, cool.

00:27:01.000 Kind of important.

00:27:02.000 Transgender youth.

00:27:04.000 Careful.

00:27:04.000 Okay.

00:27:05.000 So, this article has a section titled, Societal and Legal Attitudes.

00:27:12.000 The only attitude mentioned though, I'm reading this, is the one in favor of hormone blockers and genital Mm-hmm.

00:27:20.000 So this is before the edit that we made.

00:27:22.000 Wikipedia 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.

00:27:38.000 The 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.

00:27:50.000 But how are you going to hit 18 when you killed yourself at 15?

00:27:54.000 Well, I think it's sort of one of those riddles.

00:27:56.000 Ah, gotcha.

00:27:57.000 That's what they're doing.

00:27:58.000 They're not making us.

00:27:59.000 Like if a plane crashes, where do you bury the survivors?

00:28:00.000 Oh, you don't bury survivors.

00:28:01.000 You got me. 1.00

00:28:03.000 I don't have a penis anymore. 1.00

00:28:04.000 Oh. 1.00

00:28:05.000 No, I think it's a good idea to pump your kid full of drugs and cut off their penis. 1.00

00:28:08.000 I've always said that. 1.00

00:28:09.000 Well, look.

00:28:11.000 That's just because you care too much.

00:28:13.000 Well, I'm a good guy.

00:28:14.000 Yeah, you're a good dad.

00:28:15.000 So, we added the story of Jeff Younger, whose rights were removed by the Texas judge.

00:28:18.000 Remember that story?

00:28:19.000 I do.

00:28:20.000 So, for those of you who've forgotten, James' mother is now the sole decision maker for hormones and surgery.

00:28:26.000 Now, the dad has to attend counseling and fund the conversion to the tune of $5,000.

00:28:32.000 A month.

00:28:33.000 So here's a quote.

00:28:35.000 The topic is far more controversial in cases where parents disagree on the use of hormone

00:28:41.000 blockers in surgery.

00:28:43.000 The case of one such seven-year-old, James Younger, made international headlines due

00:28:47.000 to how both parents wholly disagreed.

00:28:49.000 So that's what we changed, to be clear, just to add on to them acting as though it's a

00:28:55.000 very easy process and that people are in agreement.

00:28:58.000 We said, well, actually there's a wrinkle.

00:28:59.000 In other words, we didn't even say it's bad to put a six-year-old on puberty blockers, though... You stated a fact.

00:29:05.000 I think it's bad.

00:29:05.000 But I didn't even put that in there because I knew that they'd have a conniption fit.

00:29:09.000 But even this case study... But the fact that they disagreed is a fact.

00:29:13.000 There's nothing that can be neutral or... Not neutral, but... It's just a fact.

00:29:17.000 This was taken down What did Wikipedia do?

00:29:20.000 Taken down on January 24th of 2022, claiming that it was a neutral point of view violation.

00:29:27.000 Let me ask you again.

00:29:28.000 What is a violation of a neutral point of view?

00:29:31.000 The topic is far more controversial in cases where parents disagree on the use of hormone blockers.

00:29:39.000 The case of one such seven-year-old, James Younger, made international headlines due to how both parents wholly disagreed.

00:29:46.000 There is nothing in there.

00:29:48.000 That is anecdotal?

00:29:50.000 There's nothing even flowery in the language there.

00:29:53.000 That is entirely empirical.

00:29:55.000 This is something that has happened.

00:29:58.000 And it's a violation.

00:29:59.000 I guess it is true, because if both your parents agree, it's way more of a problem.

00:30:03.000 You would think so, depending on what they both agree.

00:30:06.000 Oh, I see what you mean.

00:30:07.000 See what I'm saying?

00:30:08.000 Yes.

00:30:10.000 The old...

00:30:12.000 So what's the score?

00:30:13.000 I believe that would be three lies for Wikipedia.

00:30:16.000 It's truth zero.

00:30:17.000 I'm sorry, three Wikipedias.

00:30:18.000 Yes, truth zero versus three Wikipedias.

00:30:21.000 Three little white Wikipedias.

00:30:23.000 Three little white Wikipedias.

00:30:26.000 Wow.

00:30:27.000 Which we know they'll be fine with because they got rid of, because they claimed Thomas Sowell was not a reliable source.

00:30:32.000 Well no.

00:30:33.000 So we assume that little white Wikipedias is a compliment to you.

00:30:37.000 If you can hear me through your hoods.

00:30:39.000 Yes.

00:30:39.000 Great job, guys.

00:30:40.000 You're making the world a better place.

00:30:42.000 Yes. 0.98

00:30:43.000 So far, kids with mutilated genitals, good. 0.99

00:30:46.000 Princess Diana mutilated and buried, bad. 1.00

00:30:49.000 Somewhere, Skynet is looking at Wikipedia going, fuck. 1.00

00:30:53.000 Oh, Skynet was way, I would way rather have a robot crushing my skull than living in this world. 1.00

00:30:59.000 Yeah.

00:31:00.000 I'd rather the state of America be the first seen.

00:31:03.000 Yeah, I'd be like, yeah, catch me, T-1000.

00:31:06.000 It would be if Wikipedia were the Terminator.

00:31:10.000 Give me your bike, your clothes.

00:31:14.000 Say, don't you want my boots?

00:31:15.000 Are they cute?

00:31:16.000 Yeah, he's talking to a girl.

00:31:18.000 I want your dress.

00:31:20.000 I want your bonnet.

00:31:21.000 Your ballet slippers.

00:31:23.000 Yes.

00:31:24.000 I want to drive your Beetle. 1.00

00:31:26.000 Also, I want to get rid of my robot penis. 1.00

00:31:30.000 Yes, it's gross. 1.00

00:31:32.000 All right. 1.00

00:31:32.000 Can I have your penis? 1.00

00:31:35.000 I don't need them so much as collect them and put them on my dashboard. 1.00

00:31:39.000 Are you John Connor?

00:31:41.000 I want you inside me.

00:31:44.000 Now the next topic is George Floyd.

00:31:47.000 Now remember, keep in mind, remember how there was some disagreement over his primary cause of death.

00:31:53.000 No one here is saying that there wasn't some kind of police misconduct.

00:31:57.000 No 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.

00:32:10.000 The Wikipedia article dismisses the other more likely primary causes of death if you watch the court case.

00:32:16.000 For example, advanced heart disease, fentanyl, COVID-19, which we'll take us to the COVID-19 page in a little bit.

00:32:22.000 Again, in the spirit of consistency.

00:32:24.000 So 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.

00:32:38.000 Now, 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.

00:33:01.000 Okay.

00:33:02.000 So, our change to the article on Wikipedia revealed a huge hole in their argument.

00:33:08.000 Let me read it to you.

00:33:09.000 The 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.

00:33:18.000 prior to the potentially fatal dose, and relies on the presupposition that there was only one administration of fentanyl.

00:33:27.000 Now, there's nothing that can be argued about that, empirically, medically.

00:33:31.000 And if you've watched the trial, you know that these arguments were made on both sides.

00:33:35.000 So, again, we're talking about neutrality.

00:33:37.000 Wherever 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.

00:33:49.000 Wikipedia took it down.

00:33:50.000 What did they say?

00:33:51.000 Quote, there is strong consensus against this content.

00:33:55.000 Now here's what's so scary about that.

00:33:57.000 Strong consensus.

00:33:58.000 Okay.

00:33:59.000 Who determines consensus?

00:34:01.000 Let's discuss on any issue.

00:34:03.000 By the way, that's still truth zero.

00:34:05.000 Wikipedia's four.

00:34:06.000 So Wikipedia has four Wikipedias.

00:34:08.000 Well, also, just their response, though, is so blanket and not an answer or reason.

00:34:13.000 And this is what they do, right?

00:34:14.000 They say, strong consensus against this content.

00:34:17.000 Okay, first off, there are certain areas where consensus matters.

00:34:22.000 For example, theology, philosophy.

00:34:26.000 Consensus might be on the results.

00:34:29.000 of a scientific experiment, right?

00:34:31.000 The interpretation of the results.

00:34:33.000 However, consensus doesn't determine science.

00:34:39.000 It could be the consensus that the Earth is flat somewhere in the world at some point in time.

00:34:43.000 The truth is that it's not.

00:34:45.000 Right?

00:34:45.000 There could be some kind of scientific consensus, for example, that Florida would have been gone in 2013.

00:34:51.000 Or all the predictions that we've gone through from an inconvenient truth.

00:34:55.000 The science, the truth, shows that it's not.

00:34:58.000 Here it says there's strong consensus against this concept.

00:35:00.000 Well, who determines consensus?

00:35:02.000 Who determines consensus on Wikipedia?

00:35:05.000 The 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.

00:35:16.000 So 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.

00:35:29.000 This 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.

00:35:46.000 It really has nothing to do with... that's absurd. 0.55

00:35:48.000 Well, consensus says you're absurd.

00:35:50.000 Well, my consensus says I'm not. 0.75

00:35:55.000 I don't have any.

00:35:56.000 What do we do?

00:35:57.000 I have consensus parties every Thursday.

00:35:58.000 It's consensus versus consensus.

00:36:00.000 They're very consensual.

00:36:01.000 Well, I don't need your consensus.

00:36:03.000 Here's another one.

00:36:04.000 Maricopa County, the election audit.

00:36:06.000 Now, I'm not saying the election fraud election.

00:36:09.000 That's not what we're saying.

00:36:10.000 The historical audit that took place in Maricopa County.

00:36:15.000 Okay.

00:36:16.000 The article on Wikipedia only refers to the audit as the result of a conspiracy theory.

00:36:22.000 So, before our edit, it never mentions that it's illegal to refuse a subpoena.

00:36:26.000 That's pivotal.

00:36:28.000 After the edit, we offered the Attorney General's views on this issue.

00:36:33.000 Quote, Attorney General Mark Baranovich stated that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors violated state law by not complying with election audit subpoena.

00:36:44.000 Aaron Brockovich.

00:36:45.000 Then what we added was what should have happened as a result of a failure to comply.

00:36:51.000 Now this isn't my opinion or 500 edit Wikipedia administrator consensus opinion.

00:37:01.000 This is the law.

00:37:04.000 What happens if you do not comply with a subpoena.

00:37:06.000 Let me read you The law.

00:37:09.000 According 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.

00:37:29.000 Now that's the law.

00:37:30.000 What did Wikipedia say to this addition?

00:37:34.000 The only edition that would actually have legal standing, by the way, they took it down, saying, it might be true, but no secondary source.

00:37:44.000 For the statute?

00:37:46.000 It's the law of the state!

00:37:49.000 It's like, nah, you know what?

00:37:50.000 The Constitution, we don't have a second source.

00:37:53.000 Well, there's only one original copy!

00:37:57.000 There's a lot of places to get the info.

00:37:58.000 There's a lot of tea stains.

00:38:00.000 It was smudgy, it was tough to read, so no guns!

00:38:03.000 Nicholas Cage stole it from a glass case.

00:38:05.000 Right, yeah.

00:38:05.000 It was impossible to prove it.

00:38:07.000 John Voight was just trying to block it with an old hockey goalie mask.

00:38:11.000 That's what he does.

00:38:13.000 What?

00:38:13.000 Let's have nine sequels.

00:38:14.000 Everything sucks. 0.98

00:38:15.000 So let's look at the scoreboard. 0.98

00:38:16.000 We have Truth, still zero.

00:38:18.000 Wikipedia, five.

00:38:20.000 Five Wikipedias?

00:38:21.000 That's five Wikipedias.

00:38:22.000 That's a lot of Wikipedias.

00:38:23.000 All right, next topic.

00:38:25.000 Stop Asian hate, which I agree with. 0.98

00:38:28.000 Yeah. 0.99

00:38:29.000 To be clear, Asian hate crimes are bad. 0.98

00:38:32.000 They're bad.

00:38:32.000 We all wish to stop.

00:38:34.000 Consensus, guys?

00:38:35.000 Do we want to stop Asian hate?

00:38:37.000 Yes.

00:38:37.000 Most of them are gone to lunch.

00:38:38.000 Everyone said yes, except old Johnny hates Asians. 0.59

00:38:42.000 Ah, well, you know. 0.99

00:38:43.000 He's always hating Asians. 0.78

00:38:44.000 We should have done the background check.

00:38:46.000 So there's only one reference.

00:38:48.000 Sorry, I should say there's only reference to white perpetrators in this entire article here on Wikipedia.

00:38:55.000 It attributes Asian hate to Trumpism.

00:39:00.000 Which I don't even know how you... Okay, let me just read it.

00:39:02.000 So you liked a president?

00:39:03.000 Yeah.

00:39:05.000 Before the edit, for instance, they emphasize the 2021 shootings at Young's Asian Massage Parlor, that that was by a white man.

00:39:15.000 Yeah, I was in the back room.

00:39:17.000 After the edit, we contributed some crime statistics, not just an anecdotal story or 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 stores, but empirical evidence.

00:39:27.000 So, 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.

00:39:37.000 A 2008 San Francisco Police Department survey found 85% of physical assault crimes consisted of a black attacker and an Asian victim.

00:39:46.000 This suggests that Asian hate is neither a new nor mostly white phenomenon.

00:39:50.000 By the way, references all available at latosprada.com.

00:39:52.000 You can click the link in the description.

00:39:54.000 We also included this.

00:39:55.000 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black Americans commit 28% of crimes against Asian victims, which is a higher proportion than any other race.

00:40:07.000 That's from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

00:40:10.000 I don't know about the consensus, Well, the consensus feels there's more whites. 0.53

00:40:15.000 Do you know what they did?

00:40:17.000 Added more whites.

00:40:17.000 They 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

00:40:57.000 Here's 80 clips of the knockout game.

00:41:00.000 Tell me what you notice.

00:41:04.000 So the scoreboard is truth zero.

00:41:06.000 Wikipedia is six.

00:41:08.000 Wow, that's a lot.

00:41:09.000 All right.

00:41:10.000 Here's another page.

00:41:11.000 We'll just rattle through these.

00:41:12.000 A Boulder shooting.

00:41:12.000 This 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.

00:41:20.000 Yes.

00:41:21.000 So that, you know, got the old sniffer going.

00:41:23.000 Let me, the old hound nose going on down the trail.

00:41:26.000 Yeah, Syrians like white-ish, though. 1.00

00:41:29.000 Yeah, I guess.

00:41:29.000 I mean, ish.

00:41:30.000 Yeah.

00:41:31.000 They like yogurt.

00:41:32.000 So the Syrian-born gunman shot and killed ten people.

00:41:35.000 For those of you who don't remember, this was including an off-duty police officer.

00:41:39.000 Okay.

00:41:39.000 So 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.

00:41:52.000 Kind of like Wikipedia is still doing the white, you know, stop Asian hate.

00:41:55.000 But this was, for people who don't remember, this was everywhere, right?

00:41:59.000 Well, 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.

00:42:07.000 But here's the thing, you may not like The fact that we're pointing... But this does matter for historical context, right?

00:42:13.000 People, 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.

00:42:26.000 We included even a tweet from Rashida Tlaib on the subject, quote, we need courage to take on white supremacy plus gun violence.

00:42:34.000 What did Wikipedia do?

00:42:35.000 They took it down within 24 hours saying, doesn't appear to be notable, and no secondary source anyway.

00:42:43.000 Go to her Twi- Go to her Twitter!

00:42:46.000 Go to her Twitter, grab Time Machine, if she tried to delete it and cover her tracks, just do some work!

00:42:51.000 How can you have enough time in the day to do 500 edits and you can't just go click?

00:42:56.000 Oh, that's true.

00:42:57.000 Yeah, you know how you guys canceled, like, all these people?

00:43:00.000 Just use that tactic.

00:43:02.000 Go back to Twitter and go, oh, she did say that. 0.96

00:43:04.000 She did say that.

00:43:07.000 Which riles up people to hurt other people.

00:43:09.000 And Ilhan Omar married her brother.

00:43:11.000 She did.

00:43:12.000 That is actually a fact.

00:43:13.000 So the scoreboard now... But they may not have had sex.

00:43:15.000 They may not have.

00:43:16.000 No.

00:43:17.000 That's why they got married.

00:43:18.000 Well then it's just a sham marriage, really.

00:43:19.000 Yeah.

00:43:20.000 If you don't consummate... You know.

00:43:23.000 Somewhere there's a one-eyed flapper kid getting ready to drown in a baby pool.

00:43:30.000 Just crossing his fingers, hoping for Captain Phillips 2.

00:43:34.000 The scoreboard right now is Truth 0.

00:43:36.000 7 Wikipedia's?

00:43:37.000 Truth 0, Wikipedia 7.

00:43:40.000 With 7 Wikipedia's.

00:43:41.000 I'm here to count.

00:43:42.000 Let's go here.

00:43:43.000 DeSantis and COVID.

00:43:44.000 Pretty significant one.

00:43:46.000 Now, 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?

00:43:57.000 Trying to make it seem as though Florida has done worse than average in the pandemic.

00:44:01.000 So what did we do?

00:44:02.000 Again, in the spirit of balance, we just conducted the neutrality test at Wikipedia.

00:44:07.000 They talk about requiring a counterbalance.

00:44:10.000 We added some high points for Florida, for example.

00:44:13.000 As 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.

00:44:26.000 Absolutely irrefutable.

00:44:27.000 Yep.

00:44:28.000 And you don't even need one source or an article.

00:44:31.000 You can simply go to the websites that track COVID information right now, the COVID data, which you can track in real time.

00:44:36.000 What did Wikipedia do?

00:44:37.000 What do you think they did?

00:44:38.000 I'm going to go ahead and say that they took it down.

00:44:42.000 Why?

00:44:43.000 Because it was from a source that wasn't reliable to them.

00:44:47.000 They said one word.

00:44:49.000 What?

00:44:49.000 Neutrality.

00:44:51.000 Oh! 0.60

00:44:51.000 Neutrality. 0.60

00:44:53.000 Yeah, no, they didn't write, they could have written neutrality, bruh.

00:44:58.000 Neutrality, bruh.

00:44:59.000 I was kind of hoping they went deeper than that, to be honest.

00:45:01.000 No, they don't go very deep.

00:45:02.000 Wow, that's awful.

00:45:04.000 So what is- The actual data that it fell behind New York and Maryland- Is as neutral as anything can be.

00:45:11.000 No it's not.

00:45:11.000 You don't even know what neutrality- I don't even know you anymore.

00:45:14.000 Oh, you're right.

00:45:14.000 I mean that that's not neutral to state facts.

00:45:16.000 No.

00:45:17.000 No, absolutely not.

00:45:18.000 So the scoreboard- It needs to be little white wikipedias.

00:45:20.000 Little white wikipedias.

00:45:22.000 Scoreboard truth, zero.

00:45:23.000 Wikipedia, eight.

00:45:25.000 Eight wikipedias.

00:45:27.000 Alright, here's one.

00:45:28.000 The Texas Heartbeat Act.

00:45:30.000 For those of you who don't remember, this is the Texas abortion bill in relation to a child's heartbeat.

00:45:35.000 Now, the article, we're talking about Wikipedia, gives criticism to the bill.

00:45:42.000 But it entirely ignores any of the pro-life sentiment or the potential benefit.

00:45:48.000 So 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?

00:45:54.000 That's the heartbeat bill, regardless of where you line up.

00:45:56.000 However, I understand that you are going to describe this as a bill that a good portion of you won't like.

00:46:04.000 I get that.

00:46:05.000 But you still do need to in the form, in the spirit of balance, Here's the issue.

00:46:14.000 If 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?

00:46:25.000 And nowhere in the records does it show the reason for the bill.

00:46:31.000 The 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.

00:46:41.000 If you don't state the reason for it, then people won't understand their history.

00:46:46.000 It's really important.

00:46:48.000 For example, I never learned World War II and not learn why the Nazis did what they did. 0.86

00:46:54.000 No one's saying that it's right.

00:46:57.000 But you need to learn why they did it.

00:46:59.000 I learned about the Treaty of Versailles.

00:47:00.000 I learned about why Hitler, why Germany felt embarrassed in the world stage.

00:47:03.000 So that you understand it and you try, in going forward, have a better grasp of historical context.

00:47:10.000 In 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.

00:47:19.000 So, before our edit, they wrote this from the University of Texas at Austin.

00:47:23.000 This is one of their references.

00:47:24.000 The 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.

00:47:35.000 It's a fun word.

00:47:36.000 It's a fun word.

00:47:36.000 Abortion care.

00:47:37.000 Yeah, just even take the word medical out of it.

00:47:39.000 It's care.

00:47:40.000 It's care!

00:47:41.000 I just can't believe it.

00:47:42.000 Well, I can.

00:47:43.000 They just said it.

00:47:43.000 I can.

00:47:43.000 I absolutely can.

00:47:44.000 They just said abortion care. 0.98

00:47:45.000 Now, we swap that out for completely neutral and clinical Descriptors of what actually takes place.

00:47:54.000 Right?

00:47:54.000 Saying this would affect black women and poor women more and people who don't have an Uber account to get the right stirrup cuddles.

00:48:05.000 Right, we decided to include descriptive clinical language from other sources.

00:48:15.000 Quote, 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.

00:48:30.000 This 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.

00:48:44.000 That is the medical procedure that would be occurring at those facilities.

00:48:50.000 Well, especially at a late term.

00:48:51.000 Right.

00:48:52.000 Well, they just took it down.

00:48:53.000 Oh, good.

00:48:54.000 Neutral?

00:48:55.000 Uh, no reason.

00:48:56.000 Oh.

00:48:57.000 It's just gone.

00:48:58.000 Well, that makes sense.

00:49:00.000 It's fairy dust.

00:49:02.000 So you put in a fact and they're like, yeah, it didn't happen.

00:49:04.000 So what the final score that we have now.

00:49:07.000 Is it 10?

00:49:08.000 Yeah.

00:49:08.000 It's truth zero.

00:49:10.000 Wikipedia 10.

00:49:12.000 Hello.

00:49:13.000 It is I, Nat Geo, also known as Goofyus. 0.90

00:49:18.000 After editing, we realized that the count should have said nine Wikipedias.

00:49:23.000 We took one out of our show map for brevity, but didn't change the number. 0.99

00:49:28.000 It's hard to see such small details with these little stupid sunglasses. 0.99

00:49:33.000 That's pretty impressive. 1.00

00:49:34.000 We could have kept going, but I already want to swallow a knife.

00:49:39.000 I did today.

00:49:40.000 Did you?

00:49:41.000 It's a trick.

00:49:41.000 Yeah, it's a trick that you do.

00:49:43.000 That's more of a party trick.

00:49:44.000 I mean, I wanted to swallow a knife.

00:49:45.000 Drain cleaner, just as good.

00:49:47.000 Yeah, it is good.

00:49:48.000 You gurgle with it.

00:49:50.000 So what's the takeaway here?

00:49:51.000 Wikipedia is clearly a propaganda arm of the left.

00:49:54.000 It's not a research tool.

00:49:55.000 drain cleaner.

00:49:56.000 Yep.

00:49:57.000 I remember. 1.00

00:49:58.000 You stupid n-words. 1.00

00:49:59.000 And you were like Trump. 1.00

00:50:00.000 Shut the f*** up. 1.00

00:50:01.000 No. 0.99

00:50:02.000 So what's the takeaway here is Wikipedia is clearly a propaganda arm of the left.

00:50:11.000 It's not a research tool.

00:50:13.000 And by the way, you can also have research tools that are left leaning or right leaning.

00:50:18.000 I want to be clear.

00:50:19.000 However, 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.

00:50:42.000 It's an impossibility to use it as a research tool.

00:50:46.000 People who complain about echo chambers don't often complain.

00:50:50.000 Why aren't they complaining about Wikipedia?

00:50:52.000 Wikipedia is an echo chamber.

00:50:54.000 It's just one that a lot of people They haven't realized it yet.

00:50:58.000 They haven't caught on yet.

00:50:59.000 Now, let me be clear.

00:51:01.000 I lean to the right.

00:51:02.000 I'm very open about it.

00:51:03.000 But, lightearthcradder.com, you can go there and see how we source every single episode.

00:51:08.000 And by the way, even this episode right now.

00:51:11.000 What do we do when we look for references for the show, when we source the show?

00:51:16.000 It's the same process every time.

00:51:18.000 We look for the primary source.

00:51:20.000 So 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.

00:51:30.000 So usually you might end up finding that at PubMed, right?

00:51:32.000 Or some kind of published clinical medical journal.

00:51:36.000 Then we cross-reference it with the left perspective, and the right perspective, what they're saying about this issue.

00:51:43.000 And then we try and provide those sources to you.

00:51:45.000 If 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.

00:51:56.000 And this is a tool that I wish had been out there when I was in school.

00:51:59.000 So, lotterywithcrowder.com, you can click the link below.

00:52:03.000 Also, by the way, leave a like, comment below.

00:52:06.000 I don't want to use the word expose when you're in that jacket.

00:52:08.000 Wikipedia because that helps. This is a data pool. There are millions of you out there

00:52:13.000 and the more you provide, the more robust our research can be. Here's one thing too

00:52:18.000 though, before I go, I have one more aspect of Wikipedia to...

00:52:22.000 I don't want to use the word expose when you're in that jacket. Oh, I'll expose

00:52:27.000 myself later. I like to go to the mall and just see what happens.

00:52:32.000 I prefer the subway.

00:52:34.000 So one more aspect of Wikipedia to expose.

00:52:36.000 Up until now, I've only really sort of... Exposed 10 lies.

00:52:42.000 Right.

00:52:43.000 I've showed you how Wikipedia is quote-unquote woke.

00:52:46.000 Yes.

00:52:46.000 More so, right?

00:52:47.000 Leftly, the woke.

00:52:49.000 That's the term people use.

00:52:50.000 Woke to make it... You're more progressive?

00:52:53.000 But here's the thing, there's hope.

00:52:54.000 Oh?

00:52:54.000 I didn't want to leave it all doom and gloom.

00:52:56.000 Hope and woke?

00:52:57.000 Well, but there's more.

00:52:59.000 Is that the Lily Tomlin joke?

00:53:01.000 Let me expose to you how secretly based Wikipedia sometimes, if even accidentally, finds themselves to be.

00:53:11.000 🎵 Hey, where can we see pictures of you without your shirt?

00:53:30.000 Instagram?

00:53:31.000 I don't know.

00:53:32.000 Depends on if you have my keychain to the cloud.

00:53:35.000 Well, I think you should join Mug Club to see me without a shirt and Instagram to see him without a shirt.

00:53:41.000 Unless, of course, your shirt is one of these that you got on our website.

00:53:45.000 That's three things.

00:53:46.000 That's a non sequitur, but I warn you about the hacks in advance.

Louder with Crowder - January 27, 2022

EXPOSED: Wikipedia’s Bias Tested and PROVEN! | Louder with Crowder

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript