Wikipedia Is More One-Sided Than Ever

[PeteS in CA]

Wikipedia Is More One-Sided Than Ever

https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever/

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia,” declares a policy page, “must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)." This is essential policy, believe it or not. Maybe that will be hard to believe, if you have read many Wikipedia articles on controversial topics lately. But it is true: neutrality is the second of the “Five Pillars” policies that define Wikipedia’s approach to the craft of encyclopedia-writing. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales made a statement that Wikipedia now regards as definitive. “Doing The Right Thing takes many forms,” he wrote, “but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty.”

Yes, Wikipedia is very earnest about its neutrality.

But what does “neutral” mean? This is easy to misunderstand; many people think it means the same as “objective.” But neutrality is not the same as objectivity. If an encyclopedia is neutral about political, scientific, and religious controversies—the issues that define the ongoing culture war—then you will find competing sides represented carefully and respectfully, even if one side is “objectively” wrong. From a truly neutral article, you would learn why, on a whole variety of issues, conservatives believe one thing, while progressives believe another thing. And then you would be able to make up your own mind.

Is that what Wikipedia offers? As we will see, the answer is No.
...
So does Wikipedia meet its own ideals of neutrality? Let’s find out. I already explored this question by looking for (and easily finding) bias in articles on important topics. In the present article, I take another approach: we can list a few big political issues, briefly summarize the warring views on them, and then look and see whether these views are presented neutrally, in a way that allows the reader to make up his own mind. Does that sound fair? I think it does. And does Wikipedia take such an approach?

I propose to look and see. Which issues in the last year or so have caused the most acrimonious dispute? We can look at the main battlefronts of the culture war: politics, science, and religion. I will spend most of my time on politics.

In U.S. politics, four of the biggest political issues would include:

* Trump’s impeachments
* Biden’s scandals
* The Antifa and BLM riots
* Alleged election irregularities

No. As of this writing (and this caveat goes for all of the following), there was a section of the Donald Trump article about the first impeachment (2019-20). That section had absolutely no information about the Republican side in the House impeachment proceedings; only the Democratic side is presented. As to the Senate trial, here is the total extent of Wikipedia’s remarks about the Trump (i.e., majority Republican) position: “Trump’s lawyers did not deny the facts as presented in the charges but said Trump had not broken any laws or obstructed Congress. They argued that the impeachment was ‘constitutionally and legally invalid’ because Trump was not charged with a crime and that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense.” That is all; two transparently biased sentences. Among other things, the article omits the essential point that Trump’s lawyers also denied that there was any abuse of power in the first place.
...
... there is a much longer article, “Second impeachment of Donald Trump,” with a “Background” section that essentially lays out the Democratic case against Trump. No Trump rebuttal is given at all. The rest of the article is also extremely biased; there is a long section of opinions whether Trump should have been impeached. The “Opposition” section (i.e., listing people opposed to impeachment) skips entirely over all House Republican opposition, and presents only Senate opposition.

This is hardly fair, neutral treatment on events that deeply divided the American people. Wikipedia took the Democrats’ side against Trump, period. The articles are so biased, in fact, that it is fair to call them “propaganda.”

[Kamaji]

I do not trust Wikipedia for anything that is controversial or involves current politics; even older subjects that elicit a current political response must be handled carefully.

[jmyrlefuller]

The main issue with Wikipedia is that it relies way too heavily on mainstream/legacy news sources that masquerade as neutral but are anything but. Enough of them push a narrative, and Wikipedia rolls with it.

Plus you will occasionally run into a handful of incredibly pushy, arrogant editors who insist their way of editing is the only right way and will revert anything they don't like. "Revert monkeys," I like to call them.

[Sighlass]

The main issue with Wikipedia is that it relies way too heavily on mainstream/legacy news sources that masquerade as neutral but are anything but. Enough of them push a narrative, and Wikipedia rolls with it.

Plus you will occasionally run into a handful of incredibly pushy, arrogant editors who insist their way of editing is the only right way and will revert anything they don't like. "Revert monkeys," I like to call them.

Too generous, leftist pigs hide behind their leftist "sources" to act like they are neutral.

[Cyber Liberty]

I do not trust Wikipedia for anything that is controversial or involves current politics; even older subjects that elicit a current political response must be handled carefully.

I never took much stock in the Encyclopedias of Ye Olde Days, either.  They  were not legitimate sources when writing English Term Papers, for example.  They, like Wiki, are only good to get you started on rounding up legitimate cites.