Wikipedia Is Badly Biased

The Uncyclopedia logo. Maybe more appropriate for Wikipedia itself now.

Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.1 The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call “false balance.”2 The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science. Here are some examples from each of these subjects, which were easy to find, no hunting around. Many, many more could be given.

Wikipedia’s favorite president?

Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good. Beyond that, a neutral article must fairly represent competing views on the figure by the major parties.

In other words—and this is the point crucial to evaluating an article’s neutrality—a neutral article is written not to take sides on issues of controversy. It does not matter whether one or both sides believe their point of view is totally factual and supported with incontrovertible proof. How many times, in politics and in many walks of life, have we seen controversies in which both sides can cite apparently rigorous studies, or chapter and verse, or original source material that, they claim, show their view is absolutely certain? In such cases, a neutral resource like Wikipedia is bound by policy not to take a side. Yet it does.

Political scandals are a good example where sources are carefully lined up on both sides. There were many controversies over “scandals” plaguing Obama’s presidency. But in fact, the only scandals that I could find in Wikipedia’s Obama article were a few that the left finds at least a little scandalous, such as Snowden’s revelations about NSA activities under Obama. In short, the article is almost a total whitewash. You might find this to be objectively correct, if you are a Democrat; but you cannot claim that this is a neutral treatment, considering that the other major U.S. party would, citing other ostensibly credible sources, treat the subject very differently. On such topics, neutrality in any sense worth the name essentially requires that readers not be able to detect the editors’ political alignment.

Not Wikipedia’s favorite president

Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke. Just for example, there are 5,224 none-too-flattering words in the “Presidency” section. By contrast, the following “Public Profile” (which the Obama article entirely lacks), “Investigations,” and “Impeachment” sections are unrelentingly negative, and together add up to some 4,545 words—in other words, the controversy sections are almost as long as the sections about his presidency. Common words in the article are “false” and “falsely” (46 instances): Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are “false.” Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so, especially without attribution. You might approve of Wikipedia describing Trump’s incorrect statements as “false,” very well; but then you must admit that you no longer support a policy of neutrality on Wikipedia. More to the point, Republican, Trump-supporting views are basically not represented at all in the article on Trump.

I leave the glowing Hillary Clinton article as an exercise for the reader.

On political topics it is easiest to argue for the profound benefits—even the moral necessity—of eliminating bias in reference works. As I argue in my 2015 essay, “Why Neutrality” (updated in Essays on Free Knowledge) we naturally desire neutrality on political and many other topics because we want to be left free to make up our own minds. Reference, news, and educational resources aimed at laying out a subject in general should give us the tools we need to rationally decide what we want to think. Only those who want to force the minds of others can be opposed to neutrality.

“Prior to prohibition, cannabis was available freely in a variety of forms,” says Wikipedia, helpfully.

Wikipedia can be counted on to cover not just political figures, but political issues as well from a liberal-left point of view. No conservative would write, in an abortion article, “When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine,” a claim that is questionable on its face, considering what an invasive, psychologically distressing, and sometimes lengthy procedure it can be even when done according to modern medical practices. More to the point, abortion opponents consider the fetus to be a human being with rights; their view, that it is not safe for the baby, is utterly ignored. To pick another, random issue, drug legalization, dubbed drug liberalization by Wikipedia, has only a little information about any potential hazards of drug legalization policies; it mostly serves as a brief for legalization, followed by a catalog of drug policies worldwide. Or to take an up-to-the-minute issue, the LGBT adoption article includes several talking points in favor of LGBT adoption rights, but omits any arguments against. On all such issues, the point is that true neutrality, to be carefully distinguished from objectivity, requires that the article be written in a way that makes it impossible to determine the editors’ position on the important controversies the article touches on.

Gospel reliability is “uncertain,” Wikipedia says, neutrally.

What about articles on religious topics? The first article I thought to look at had some pretty egregious instances of bias: the Jesus article. It simply asserts, again in its own voice, that “the quest for the historical Jesus has yielded major uncertainty on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the Jesus portrayed in the Bible reflects the historical Jesus.” In another place, the article simply asserts, “the gospels are not independent nor consistent records of Jesus’ life.” A great many Christians would take issue with such statements, which means they are not neutral for that reason alone. In other words, the very fact that many Christians, including many deeply educated conservative seminarians, believe in the historical reliability of the Gospels, and that they are wholly consistent, means that the article is biased if it simply asserts, without attribution or qualification, that this is a matter of “major uncertainty.” Now, it would be accurate and neutral to say it is widely disputed, but being “disputed” and being “uncertain” are very different concepts. It is in fact a controversial view that the historical accuracy of the Gospels is uncertain; others disagree, holding that, upon analysis, it is not a matter of significant uncertainty. In other respects, the article can be fairly described as a “liberal” academic discussion of Jesus, focusing especially on assorted difficulties and controversies, while failing to explain traditional, orthodox, or fundamentalist views of those issues. So it might be “liberal academic,” but it ignores conservative academic and traditional views. Therefore, what it is not is neutral, not in the original sense we defined for Wikipedia.

Of course, similarly tendentious claims can be found in other articles on religious topics, as when the Christ (title) article claims,

Although the original followers of Jesus believed Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, e.g. in the Confession of Peter, Jesus was usually referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus, son of Joseph”.[11] Jesus came to be called “Jesus Christ” (meaning “Jesus the Khristós”, i.e. “Jesus the Messiah” or “Jesus the Anointed”) by later Christians, who believe that his crucifixion and resurrection fulfill the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.

This article weirdly claims, or implies, a thing that no serious Biblical scholar of any sort would claim, viz., that Jesus was not given the title “Christ” by the original Apostles in the New Testament. The Wikipedia article itself later contradicts that claim, so perhaps the editors of the above paragraph simply meant the two conjoined words “Jesus Christ,” and that Jesus was rarely referred to with those two conjoined words in the New Testament. But this is false, too: the two words are found together in that form throughout the New Testament.

But the effect of the above-quoted paragraph is to cast doubt that the title “Christ” was used much at all by the original Apostles and disciples. That would be silly if so. These supposed “later Christians” who used “Christ” would have to include the Apostles Peter (Jesus’ first apostle), Paul (converted a few years after Jesus’ crucifixion), and Jude (Jesus’ brother), who were the authors of the bulk of the epistles of the New Testament. The word “Christ” can, of course, be found frequently in the epistles, including very early epistles, thought to be the first texts written about Jesus.3 Of course, those are not exactly “later Christians.” If the claim is simply that the word “Christ” does not appear at all or much in the Gospels, that is false, as a simple text search uncovers dozens of instances in all four Gospels,4 and about 550 instances in the entire New Testament. If it is used somewhat less in the Gospels, that would be a reflection of the fact that the authors of the Gospels were, argumentatively, using the Hebrew word “Messiah” to persuade Jewish readers that Jesus was the long-awaited Jewish messiah. But the word means much the same as the Greek title “Christ”: the anointed one, God’s chosen. So, in any event, the basic claim here is simply false. He is called “Jesus Christ” (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) in the very first verse of the New Testament (Matthew 1:1) and in the first verse of the gospel sometimes thought to be the first-written, Mark (1:1), as well.5

Or if the claim were that Jesus was not understood to be the Messiah or Christ in his own lifetime before being crucified, we need not quibble about that (though it is easy enough to cite the gospel claims that Peter believed him to be the Christ; see, e.g., Mark 8:29). The book of Acts and the epistles make it abundantly clear that the Apostles, setting up the earliest churches, thought Jesus was the Messiah—indeed, the Son of God.

Clearly, Wikipedia’s claims are tendentious if not false, and represent a point of view that many if not most Christians would rightly dispute.

It may seem more problematic to speak of the bias of scientific articles, because many people do not want to see “unscientific” views covered in encyclopedia articles. If such articles are “biased in favor of science,” some people naturally find that to be a feature, not a bug. The problem, though, is that scientists sometimes do not agree on which theories are and are not scientific. This point is perfectly obvious to anyone who actually follows any lively scientific debate at all closely. On such issues, the “scientific point of view” and the “objective point of view” according to the Establishment might be very much opposed to neutrality. So when certain people seem unified on a certain view of a scientific controversy, then that is the view that is taken for granted as the Establishment one, and often aggressively asserted, by Wikipedia.

Neutral information, representing a scientific consensus with no dissent, I’m sure.

The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject. Another example is how Wikipedia treats various topics in alternative medicine—often dismissively, and frequently labeled as “pseudoscience” in Wikipedia’s own voice. Indeed, Wikipedia defines the very term as follows: “Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective.” In all these cases, genuine neutrality requires a different sort of treatment.

Again, other examples could be found, in no doubt thousands of other, less exciting topics. These are just the first topics that came to mind, associated as they are with the culture wars, and their articles on those topics put Wikipedia very decidedly on one side of that war. You should not be able to say that about an encyclopedia that claims to be neutral.

It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one.6 It might be better to embrace a “credibility” policy and admit that their notion of what is credible does, in fact, bias them against conservatism, traditional religiosity, and minority perspectives on science and medicine—to say nothing of many other topics on which Wikipedia has biases.

Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to make any such change; they live in a fantasy world of their own making.7

The world would be better served by an independent and decentralized encyclopedia network, such as I proposed with the Encyclosphere. We will certainly develop such a network, but if it is to remain fully independent of all governmental and big corporate interests, funds are naturally scarce and it will take time.

Here is a follow-up article (June 2021).
And here is another (June 2023).


  1. The misbegotten phrase “neutral point of view” is a Jimmy Wales coinage I never supported. If a text is neutral with regard to an issue, it lacks any “point of view” with regard to the issue; it does not take a “neutral point of view.” My preferred phrase was always “the neutrality policy” or “the nonbias policy.”[]
  2. On this, see my “Why Neutrality?“, published 2015 by Ballotpedia.[]
  3. Both in the form “Jesus Christ” (e.g., 1 Peter 1:1, Jude 1:1) and in the form “Christ Jesus” (1 Corinthians 1:2). “Christ” is found throughout three epistles widely held to be among the first written, including Galatians and 1 Thessalonians, and twice in James.[]
  4. I mistakenly conceded this false point in an earlier draft of this article, after not searching enough. Greek nominative and accusative Χριστόν and genitive Χριστοῦ can be found throughout.[]
  5. If you look at the footnote Wikipedia cites in support of its weird claim, you will find a sensible, not-misleading, and relatively neutral article by Britannica, the context of which makes it perfectly clear that the authors were not making any claim about the use of the title “Christ” but instead the two-word combination “Jesus Christ,” as applied directly to Jesus in his own lifetime. It seems likely that that two-word name was used rarely, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with his having the title “Christ,” but a reflection of the fact that “Ancient Jews usually had only one name, and, when greater specificity was needed, it was customary to add the father’s name or the place of origin.” Wikipedians copying from Britannica may have missed that bit.[]
  6. That it was Wikipedia’s original notion, see the Nupedia “Lack of Bias” policy, which was the source of Wikipedia’s policy, and see also my final (2001) version of the Wikipedia neutrality policy. Read my “Why Neutrality?” for a lengthy discussion of this notion. Both articles appear in slightly revised and footnoted versions in my recent book.[]
  7. UPDATE: In an earlier version of this blog post, I included some screenshots of Wikipedia Alexa rankings, showing a drop from 5 to 12 or 13. While this is perfectly accurate, the traffic to the site has been more or less flat for years, until the last few months, in which traffic spiked probably because of the Covid-19 virus. But since the drop in Alexa rankings do not seem to reflect a drop in traffic, I decided to remove the screenshots and a couple accompanying sentences.[]

by

Posted

in

, ,

Comments

Please do dive in (politely). I want your reactions!

290 responses to “Wikipedia Is Badly Biased”

  1. Charles Manfred

    I agree with this piece only to the extent that it makes a point that 1) Wikipedia does not cover all topics from all notable perspectives, and 2) it does not qualify every statement with a source and/or explanation. And perhaps that is all that warrants your critique of it.

    However, for you to propose “an independent and decentralized encyclopedia network”, doesn’t solve the problem in the least, and it will simply become another Wikipedia. The flaws that you pointed out with Wikipedia are inherently from the fact that anyone can edit it – consequently, the quality is choppy and inconsistent at times, and the content reflects the bias of those whom it attracts and who subsequently contribute to it. (Those who traffic in pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and other poorly founded perspectives aren’t likely to use it for example, presenting a natural selection bias.) For these and other reasons, it is well known that Wikipedia should not be treated as an authoritative source on anything. Yet it still does for most casual purposes, because it simply does a good enough job. And where it fails, you always have Google.

    Wikipedia is touted as an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia captures facts. Facts are not neutral – they favour the side of truth. For widely accepted truths and opinions such as in “mainstream science”, there are good reasons for why they are so – because the documented evidence and academic support for them is overwhelming. There is of course a fair point to be made to also state (and refute) minority perspectives, if only for the sake of completeness, and even more so if it is more than a minority and there is academic debate. But ultimately, for an encyclopaedia to not reflect the comparative depth of research behind supported views, and give truth only as much showtime as mere conspiracies – to effectively present fact as opinion – undermines its purpose as a proponent of truth. Wikipedia is a place to present well-founded consensus, not debates where every point is (questionably) questioned (unless the debate *is* the topic). To let people “be left free to make up [their] own minds” is to assume everyone is or intends to be an expert at understanding all the literature behind every claim; something that Wikipedia can cite and summarise but is hardly the place to explain in full.

    I wholeheartedly concur with all points made by Elsie Snodgrass. To imply that there should be as many words in Trump’s article that put Trump in a positive light as there are that put him in a negative light is a grossly unfounded standard. If Trump has created more remarkable controversies than remarkable policies, then that is what the article should reflect. If you are unhappy with Wikipedia’s coverage or language, then add that content in or rewrite the content yourself. Will *you* present it in a “neutral” tone that does not hint at your true stance whatsoever?

    At the end of it, it seems like your beef is simply a semantic one and can be resolved by changing the term “neutrality” to “credibility” as you proposed. Neutrality is a concept to be pursued when it is one person’s statements against another’s, but not when the facts, evidence, documents and/or records clearly take a side.

    1. Your response evinces confusion and failure to think things through, on many points.

      I agree with this piece only to the extent that it makes a point that 1) Wikipedia does not cover all topics from all notable perspectives, and 2) it does not qualify every statement with a source and/or explanation. And perhaps that is all that warrants your critique of it.

      Another important part of my argument is that neutrality is what we quite rightly want out of reference works, and that biased works shade into propaganda. See “Why Neutrality” (ch. 4 of my book, linked in the header).

      However, for you to propose “an independent and decentralized encyclopedia network”, doesn’t solve the problem in the least, and it will simply become another Wikipedia. The flaws that you pointed out with Wikipedia are inherently from the fact that anyone can edit it – consequently, the quality is choppy and inconsistent at times, and the content reflects the bias of those whom it attracts and who subsequently contribute to it. (Those who traffic in pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and other poorly founded perspectives aren’t likely to use it for example, presenting a natural selection bias.)

      You don’t seem to understand what a decentralized encyclopedia network would even be. Such a network would permit a wide range of competing articles on the same topic. Anyone could write any article, indeed, but that would not force app developers, editors, raters, article selectors, etc., to include (or rate highly) articles they believe to be unreliable.

      Wikipedia is touted as an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia captures facts. Facts are not neutral – they favour the side of truth.

      This is strictly nonsense. “Facts” do not speak for themselves; they are always expressed, or not, and with greater or lesser accuracy, by human beings. “The truth” is not a “side” that facts “favor.” Neutrality is always with respect to some disputed question or other, and across of range of (naturally) human points of view.

      For widely accepted truths and opinions such as in “mainstream science”, there are good reasons for why they are so – because the documented evidence and academic support for them is overwhelming. There is of course a fair point to be made to also state (and refute) minority perspectives, if only for the sake of completeness, and even more so if it is more than a minority and there is academic debate.

      This is very naive. How do you determine which truths are, in fact, “widely accepted”? What if influential people systematically lie about which truths are “widely accepted” about a field? Not infrequently, in science, a majority view comes to be rejected, and a minority view comes to be accepted. So it is your view that the role of an encyclopedia is to “state (and refute) minority perspectives”? I strongly disagree. I think it is the role of an encyclopedia to express all competing perspectives sympathetically, sometimes with space given in proportion to their estimated popularity among experts or among the concerned public. Otherwise we have editors becoming arbiters of truth, on controversial issues, when in a society committed to liberal education (I’m guessing you’re not) that is really the role of each person.

      But ultimately, for an encyclopaedia to not reflect the comparative depth of research behind supported views, and give truth only as much showtime as mere conspiracies – to effectively present fact as opinion – undermines its purpose as a proponent of truth.

      Hilarious. I have never heard of an encyclopedia, ever—and you’d think I would have heard this, if anyone had—described as a “proponent of truth.” Encyclopedias are reference works in which we look up what purport to be facts. Where the facts are in dispute, we expect, or we should expect, to find different views laid out fairly, with their representatives named, the evidence in their favor adduced, and criticisms of them laid out.

      Wikipedia is a place to present well-founded consensus, not debates where every point is (questionably) questioned (unless the debate *is* the topic).

      Hilarious again! Ask any serious academic how much “consensus” there is in his field, especially outside of a few precise disciplines. What you will learn is that while there are greater or fewer areas of broad consensus, there is massive room for disagreement, from things disputed only by minorities, to massive disputes that occupy much time and attention of experts.

      To let people “be left free to make up [their] own minds” is to assume everyone is or intends to be an expert at understanding all the literature behind every claim; something that Wikipedia can cite and summarise but is hardly the place to explain in full.

      It is utter nonsense to suppose that wanting to make up one’s own mind entails one “is or intends to be an expert.” No. Rather, one wishes acknowledges that experts do, in fact, disagree on important areas, and one does not wish to be simply told by mere encyclopedia editors what they must believe. You do not have to be an expert yourself in order to have formulated your own rational judgment of a question. Indeed, being able to do that is precisely what we mean by a liberally educated person, and training in that skill is exactly liberal education, and a society which is led by people thus educated is a (broadly speaking) liberal society.

      A society that demands that its encyclopedias tell it what to think is illiberal, even a totalitarian society; such encyclopedias would be propaganda organs. And that is precisely what Wikipedia has become.

      I wholeheartedly concur with all points made by Elsie Snodgrass.

      She’s also very confused.

      To imply that there should be as many words in Trump’s article that put Trump in a positive light as there are that put him in a negative light is a grossly unfounded standard.

      It’s not a standard nor is it what I said; it’s just a straw man. The principle of neutrality that Wikipedia itself began with has no such implications. How do you think the article will read when you can’t tell whether it was a Republican Trump voter or a Democratic Biden voter who wrote it? That’s the question. Can you imagine such a thing? I can.

      If Trump has created more remarkable controversies than remarkable policies, then that is what the article should reflect.

      Who counts up the “controversies”? Where are these “controversies” documented? In media sources that are dominated by 90% Democratic voters? LOL.

      At the end of it, it seems like your beef is simply a semantic one and can be resolved by changing the term “neutrality” to “credibility” as you proposed. Neutrality is a concept to be pursued when it is one person’s statements against another’s, but not when the facts, evidence, documents and/or records clearly take a side.

      Again, you reveal your naivete. I suppose I’m talking to a bright high school student here. Well, kid, “facts, evidence, documents and/or records” do not “take sides,” as any mature writer knows. Facts do not speak for themselves. This is not to say there are no uncontroversial facts; there are. And it looks like they speak for themselves; but we are speaking for them, even when we agree on them.

      1. Mayo Adams

        Yes, I too have trouble with this:
        To let people “be left free to make up [their] own minds” is to assume everyone is or intends to be an expert at understanding all the literature behind every claim;

        Since the assumption is surely impossible, the implication is that Wikipedia should make up our minds for us.

        I’m grateful that you’ve taken the trouble to post a reasonable challenge to Wikipedia’s credibility.

  2. Jon Pibble

    The problem is that generally most wikipedia editors are unpaid volunteers and not academics in the field, and they tend to get attached to their articles and get extremely defensive of any changes made to them, even if they’re edits proposed by someone more educated in the target subject.

    Additionally I find the gripes about the descriptions of religion in wikipedia to be strange. While certainly, the article is written from a ‘liberal-athiest’ perspective, it’s also hard to justify using religious scripture as a source of information when religious texts often feature somewhat fantastical elements such as resurrection, or in other religion’s cases like Islam, the splitting of the moon. As for whether Jesus was called Christ or not in his time, I don’t know.

    Additionally you seem to be caught up on institutional ‘truths’ being presented as ‘fact’, while indeed, it’s good to know about alternative interpetations and theories, you have to have some limits too. For example, my grandmother read some crappy site from the early 2000’s about some french guy who managed to keep a starved dog alive for months by soley being fed sea water intravenously without any food or drink. To have such a crackpot theory mentioned in an article about say, intravenous feeding seems stupid to me. However I think that your article is mostly about things like the culture-war and on that I think that anything recent and controversial is going to inevitably have an extremely biased wikipedia article no matter what, so I think online encyclopedias are pretty bad for learning about history or politics.

    Your encyclosphere project seems cool, but I think it’ll run into the same problems as other federated network site things where pretty much everyone uses the server hosted by the company pushing the site, like the Matrix protocol defaulting to Element’s server, or will just not really get much attention. I think you’d probably be better off doing something like gittea where you just give people an html/javascript framework to make wiki sites from. There’s already a conservapedia, rationalwiki, uncyclopedia, and other alt-wikis of various biases and intents. Also, kind of cool you were one of Wikipedia’s co-founders – I’ve literally never heard of you in my life before. Found your article on a website list hosted on a site called goodsites dot tech

    – Posted from my IPhone X

  3. John R.

    Is it possible that on the political subjects at least, that the “volunteers” are not really volunteers but are paid to edit those pages as a job, and insert bias?

    When I look at the Talk Pages for the political articles in particular, it is usually the same individuals who are editing those articles. It doesn’t matter if it is about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Fox News, CNN, and even EU topics like the recent stabbing death of David Amess – it’s almost always the same people. And I have read many biased comments coming them against Fox News and especially against Donald Trump and his supporters.

    It makes me wonder if it’s not volunteers who just so happen to be left leaning, but if it is instead a outlet like Media Matters that has a team on there to push a left wing POV – knowing that the public schools and universities have millions of young eyes reading their info.

    1. Not Funny

      Actually if you follow the links on different editors you can find that they are all part of one big editor community on wikipedia and that the vast majority have very unbiased views. I dont think a gay person is exactly unbiased on the topic of gay rights!

      1. John R.

        Well, if you include non political topics then Wikipedia isn’t too bad. The bias that is rampant on Wikipedia is with the political topics and it runs the gamut from immigration, terrorism, climate change, religion, Islamic extremism, and of course, Trump/Obama/Hillary etc. etc. etc.

        Comparing how Fox News is covered vs CNN is like night and day. Same with how Obama is deemed nearly a demi-god while Trump has every possible negative thing in his life pushed front and center. Joe Biden’s article is also very timid and gives him a pass on most of his controversies. Also back to Trump as a example, many of the negatives about him are crammed into the lead as the editors know that most people don’t read the entire article but will see that.

        Fox News also has the negatives at the beginning while left wing outlets have it in a separate area or not mentioned at all.

        You are right that a gay person would be biased for pro-gay viewpoints, but that should be balanced by those who are not gay [not anti-gay but just a neutral view]. Wikipedia’s issue is that the conservative editors are severely outnumbered and are over ruled on nearly everything, which leads to extremely biased articles.

  4. Robert Fletcher

    Oh boy, has anyone read how biased Wikipedia positions Fox News yet in large forgets about the big 3 altogether in this area? Little if any corrections on the Russian hoax, flat out omissions, etc., etc. No longer will I contribute.

  5. Robert Fletcher

    Wow. Take a read on Wikipedia’s Fox News piece. Then, read about takes on the big 3. Notice anything?!

  6. Truth is perennial, does not change over time and does not depend on exposure in the mainstream media or Wikipedia, and we ourselves will recognize it when we see it if we are ready for it in our cognition and intellect. Wikipedia should strive for TRUTH and not neutrality, so we weren’t ready for the Wikipedia idea because we don’t even know the true meaning of the word TRUTH.

  7. The things you say may be true in philosophy and religion, as well as science, but they are not true of many things found in encyclopedias, which are indeed changeable because the world changes.

  8. […] out, as John Stossel not only explains but demonstrates in this short film. Wikipedia co-founder agreed in a recent editorial, saying “Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality […]

  9. […] May 14 post A blog post titled “Wikipedia Is Badly Biased” begins by declaring that […]

Leave a Reply to Not Funny Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *