Wikipedia vs. "liberal" bias

self ^ | 10/1/05 | self

[lonewacko_dot_com]

Wikipedia is an online, user-editable encyclopedia located at en.wikipedia.org/wiki . It has untold thousands of articles, and, unlike paper encyclopedias, it can immediately cover current events. Alexa says it's the 49th most popular web site, so it has a good deal of influence.

In reading through some entries, I'm struck by a certain "liberal" bias. Examples can be found in the entries for Bill Bennett, Mike Malloy and other Air America hosts, Media Matters for America, the Minuteman Project, U.S. Immigration, and many others.

Thankfully, there's something you can do about this. WP entries can be written and edited by anyone. For instance, if a fact is missing you can click a link, add it to the page, and then immediately see the changes.

However, someone else can then come along and remove the changes you made. Despite that, if you make a change that's accurate, after enough attempts it might stay there. (The link leads to such an example).

I encourage you to visit WP and look at various entries for obvious bias, and then change them accordingly. I'm not suggesting, however, that anyone remove factual information that they don't like, or that anyone adds something that's not fact-based. And, I'd suggest becoming experienced with WP's goals and how entries should be written before making large-scale changes, adding entries, or adding some kinds of links.

Note that WP has an NPOV ("neutral point of view") policy. According to their founder:

"The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct."

[escapefromboston]

Could you give some examples of the bias? I find wikipedia pretty accurate.

[ClearCase_guy]

I agree with you. Many people on FR seem to say "ooooooh ... Wikipedia ... they are sooo biased!"

But I haven't noticed it, and I use wikipedia quite a bit.

[Fenris6]

"WP entries can be written and edited by anyone."

ie. its no more accurate than an online poll.

[lilylangtree]

Question: How can you tell if somebody is a Liberal, a Conservative or a Redneck?

Answer: Pose the following question:

Suppose you're walking down a deserted street with your wife/husband and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock 9 mm, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What would you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Liberal Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!

Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

Could we run away?

What does my wife/husband think?

What about the kids?

Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation?

Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?

Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

Should I call 9-1-1?

Why is this street so deserted?

We need to raise taxes, have a "paint and weed day" and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing! ! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conservative's Answer:

BANG!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Redneck's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click. (sounds of reloading).

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips, or the Remington hollow-points?

[weegee]

FR was called out for "freeping" polls but DU's entry did not contain extended descriptions of this "horrible" practice.

[weegee]

BINGO

[gadgethead]

(Could you give an example, I find wikipedia pretty accurate)

By the very nature of the animal, anyone smart enough to use a keyboard can insert their own version of the meaning of a word. For instance, take the word neo-con. I might make it "a democrat who changed sides when the commie left took over the party" Would that be accurate enough for you?

[Fenris6]

"FR was called out for "freeping" polls but DU's entry did not contain extended descriptions of this "horrible" practice."

We couild show them - a horde of Freeper's entering "Wikipedia Accused of Pedophilia" data.

Geez, I hope teachers don't allow Wik as a legit source?

[Killborn]

The good ones don't. My prof was flabbergasted when students use Wiki as a source for college papers.

[Paul_Denton]

Hehe worth repeating :)

[Arkinsaw]

Could you give some examples of the bias? I find wikipedia pretty accurate.

I edited there for quite a while, the bias lies in the community decision-making process. Someone put in an article called "Santorum". It defined that word as, how can I put this......an end product of homosexual intercourse. A term that some DJ in San Francisco came up with off the top of his head.

It went through the process because some complained that it was not "encyclopedic". The definition would be debated, deleted, make a reappearance, etc. A huge lengthy painful debate.

BUT, someone put in the term "Islamofascism". The hue and cry was ENORMOUS. Derogatory term, mean-spirited, not a real term. Only used on FOX news and by some conservative pundits. Not widely accepted. ETC.

An offensive word designed specifically to dishonor Rick Santorum was argued about forever and it was made up by one dude in San Francisco and got like no Google hits.

Islamofascism is used widely, has tons of Google hits, is heard on national news broadcasts and in major newspapers. Yet it was deemed to be a non-encyclopedic word.

Islamofascism is gone now.....Santorum as an offensive word is now only mentioned briefly. But the process to reach these ends was far different and the Wikipedia community was extraordinarily hypocritical in the double standard applied to the two terms.

Its hopeless over there. I wouldn't recommend that anybody go waste their time trying to change Wikipedia. Might as well try change DU by posting there.

[escapefromboston]

Was that an example? I never noticed any real bias on Wikipedia.

[TennesseeProfessor]

I find Wikipedia to be a good reference source for technical Computer Science terms. For example, I needed a quick, objective view on how agile software development differed from traditional software development, and found Wikipedia helpful for that. It also has a repository of public domain and freely-redistributable illustrations; when I needed a sample flowchart I was able to grab one from Wikipedia.

[manwiththehands]

My obervations are the same as yours. If anyone can edit entries, but "management" can edit or even delete these entries to suit the political bias of "management" then it is not a truly "unbiased" web site.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Seen it before.

LOL

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaa

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa


Great Lesson.

[gadgethead]

Are you serious ? I thought Arkinsaw supplied lots of food for thought and yet.. And Yes, that was an example!! Did you look up neo-con? And you find no bias? Do you find bias at CNN? AlJazeera? Seriously, where can I go to find bias you might recognize? Sorry If my post landed on the wrong thread, as sometimes that happens.

PC salutations

[lonewacko_dot_com]

From the Mike Malloy entry:

"Have I mentioned (yet), tonight, how much I hate these people?" a recurring phrase he uses when referring, variously, to supporters of the Republican Party, neo-cons, right wing conservatives, racists, fascists and the like.

Emphasis added. I don't know exactly how to phrase that in the correct way, but if that as it is doesn't sound odd, try: "Democrats, liberals, Trotskyites, and the like."

Then, go to the Media Matters for America and read up on their "analysis." I added the bit about them getting it wrong occasionally. But, before that the entry could have been written by Soros himself. As it is now, it makes it sound like MMFA applies scientific principles to their "analysis":

Presentation of a full example of a typical Media Matters analysis is beyond the scope of this article, but some brief examples are offered. External links will guide you to the original analysis documents on the organization's website.

That's either written by someone who wants to write math textbooks, or a fan of the site. That entry needs to be entirely rewritten, or it needs additional contrary information.

[Always Right]

Could you give some examples of the bias? I find wikipedia pretty accurate.

Oh there are lots of examples. For instance, there was an article last week about the anti-war protest and the 300,000-500,000 people who showed up, when really the crowd was about 1/10th that size. But there are lots of MSM backup for that misinformation. The articles tend to take the bias of the activists who post the article and whoever has the most passion about the subject.

[dalight]

Look at the current entry on Tom DeLay. One nice thing and then thousands of words about each and every scandal real or imagined. Wiki is relentlessly negative about conservatives and this is due to having massive numbers of "liberal" contributors who otherwise don't have a life.

If you make an entry they don't like, its gone. Over and over back and forth.. and it will be gone its a nightmare to do anything to establish balance against these people.

It reminds me much of the MSM.

Ultimately, conservatives will have to engage this in earnest, but it isn't going to be easy.