Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

US-centric article

With one exception (an Australian academic with extremist views), the complaints about bias in this article are all from Americans. It is widely recognised that the other 95% of the world has a liberal bias when compared with the USA. This is a global encyclopaedia that anyone from anywhere in the world can edit, so I'm sorry, that's what you're going to get. From a global perspective, Wikipedia is perfectly balanced. Now, fix the article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for the opinion citations, as I incorporated those largely from existing articles. I mostly looked at studies and even those conducted elsewhere tend to use the English Wikipedia for their data sets. "Jointly They Edit (2013)" is one I know was largely worked on in Spain. I know of one study ("Cultural Bias in Wikipedia Content on Famous Persons (2011)") that compared matching articles between Polish and English Wikipedia, but it was more of a cultural bias study than an ideological one. Obviously if you have any sources for other opinions or analysis, I'm sure they'd be welcome. -- Netoholic @ 06:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You have cleverly chosen an area where only those concerned about perceived bias will bother writing about it. The vast majority of the 95% of the world's people outside the USA see no problem of bias, so they don't write about it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Revert of copyedit

My copyedit here was promptly reverted [1] as "addition of non-NPOV content" (huh?) and I was advised to "try the talkpage". OK, I'm doing that. All I have to say is, please excuse me for fixing a syntactically incoherent sentence without altering its content or its tendency, and rest assured I won't bother again. Bishonen | talk 10:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC).

PS, oops, I just noticed I left a fragment below my changed version — my note of an actual quote from the source. That's what I get for having a small screen. That bit should certainly have been removed, sorry I didn't notice it myself. Well, as long as the incoherent sentence is back, I hope everybody's happy. Bishonen | talk 10:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC).

Creationists

Two large chunks of this article were devoted to creationists accusing Wikipedia of ideological bias. This is inappropriate for this article. They adhere to an ideology we show to be factually incorrect, that does not make us ideologically biased, it just makes them wrong.

Similarly we should avoid mention of Conservapedia. Given the intentional bias of that project towards an ideology which is at the far end of the spectrum, its genesis as a POV fork by people butthurt because Wikipedia represents the earth as billions of years old, the tiny number of active editors there, and the brutal suppression of even trivial dissent by Schlafly, using comparison with them as a basis for assertions of bias here is a bit like using flat-earthers to accuse us of bias towards mainstream geology. The problem is entirely their end. In fact we could just read the academic research we cite elsewhere in the article: small groups of ideologically homogeneous editors results in more biased content. A small group of ideologically homogeneous editors is a perfect description of their community and its 105 active editors. If every single active Conservapedia editor worked on an article there, it would still be a small group of ideologically homogeneous editors - and it would likely only happen in the first place because Wikipedia says something factually correct that causes them cognitive dissonance. Their third most viewed page is on Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the first section of which starts "Obama claims to have been born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr.—who had married just six months prior.[10] Some contend that this story is a complete fabrication". By comparison with them, we are ideologically biased. As I say, problem's their end. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It violates WP:NPOV for us to remove instances of accusations of bias, and we also can't ultimately judge their validity or WP:TRUTH. Considering that these particular accusations have been widely-reported, we just have to present them at face value, and I don't think there is any doubt that readers will judge the validity quickly on their own. -- Netoholic @ 16:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it violates NPOV for us to include claims of bias from obviously biased sources without any commentary from reliable independent secondary sources. There is no need at all to rely on sources that have a strong ideological commitment to a fringe view, as criticism of Wikipedia's "bias" against that fringe view. Same applies to Brian Martin. He went to bat for an antivaxer, and got called on it. That'a source of entirely righteous criticism. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

So you could inline-tag those sections as needing more expansion to balance them out. Fully removing them when you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (by virtue of being a main subject of Brian Martin's study) is not the solution. -- Netoholic @ 17:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be a great idea if the WP:FRINGE content was not in mainspace. Since it was, clearly it needs to come out unless there is robust consensus to include it. Also, Martin's article is not a "study", it's a polemic. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

addition of Conservapedia criticism

Reverted WP:BOLD addition by user:NorthBySouthBaranof. I don't read anything in that which is about the topic of this article. This isn't the place to debate criticism of Conservapedia, only to describe how that site relates to this topic. Certainly the minimal coverage we have is NPOV and a simple straight-to-the-facts mention. Perhaps your links are better suited for the main article of that site? -- Netoholic @ 10:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It's 100% relevant; if you're going to discuss how Conservapedia claims Wikipedia is biased, we must discuss how the vast majority of others view Conservapedia as hopelessly biased and full of lies and misstatements. Since you don't want to discuss that, I've removed the section discussing Conservapedia's views about Wikipedia. You can't have one without the other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Stating Conservapedia reasons is not the same as advocating them. We have their entire main article to discuss their credibility, we can't possibly do it fairly here and it's WP:SYNTH to try by using sources which don't mention Wikipedia. Also, please slow down and wait for replies. --Netoholic @ 17:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you looked at Conservapedia? The start of the article on Liberal says: "Liberals who are a part of the secular left prefer atheism/agnosticism over the Christian faith, as atheism has no objective morality to hinder their big government plans." The start of the article on Satan mentions Saul Alinsky. The site is a parody of itself. If their opinions are in this article, I want to add the opinions of my cat. Obviously, if we do include their opinions, then we must include the opposite. O3000 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we have their entire main article, and if you're going to include Conservapedia's claims of "liberal bias" here, one must also note that virtually everyone who isn't a conservative (plus a number of conservatives) view Conservapedia as little more than a bad joke, full of clear and obvious conservative bias. Again, this article doesn't just get to be a repository of unrebutted partisan allegations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, including Conservapedia at all, IMO, is an insult to true conservatives. Both liberals and conservatives and everything in-between have points to make. Including the opinions of this site suggests that all conservatives are raving lunatics. It would be like including the views of the Communist Party as if they represent liberals. Or, including the Colbert Report as an example of actual conservative thinking, instead of O'Reilly's which it was designed to lampoon. O3000 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Find a source with relevant context then... one perhaps that says something like "Conservapedia is wrong about Wikipedia's bias". But we can't just include unconnected criticism per WP:SYNTH. The two new sources seen here fail per WP:NEWSORG because they are strictly opinion pieces and WP:NEWSORG says opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. As used in this edit, they are presented as statements of fact, and must be removed immediately. I will point out that one is written by a pseudonym, and we don't have an article about the other, so its unclear why these opinions are significant if they were properly attributed. -- Netoholic @ 03:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Here's a how you do it. -- Netoholic @ 03:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not how it works. The onus is on you to get consensus to include disputed content, especially where that content is from a fringe source. And as noted below, Conservapedia absolutely is fringe. Not only is it creationist, it also promotes deep state conspiracy bullshit and birtherism. You might as well include the fact that Alex Jones says Wikipedia is biased because we don't represent 9/11 as an inside job. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Barbara Page review

Barbara Page reviewed Martin's study, saying that the "authors’ stinging conclusion speaks for itself" and "{i)t is no surprise that an editor can ‘nominally’ follow editing guidelines to maintain their bias." -- Page, Barbara (February 28, 2018). "Sneaky editing and masking bias". Wikimedia Research Newsletter. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved 25 May 2018.

With regards to removal of this review by user:GreenMeansGo, it is a blog but its not her blog - the Mediawiki newsletter has an editor and is a web publication of the Wikimedia Foundation, meaning this review provides validation of Martin's findings from a representative of the organization which runs Wikipedia. These direct quotes are reliable enough in this context, relevant, and interesting. -- Netoholic @ 19:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Brian Martin's article is still, however you try to gloss over it, a rant about how his article is less flattering than some people he considers his peers. Edit warring this crap in reflects exceptionally badly on you. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring the behavioral issues, the Martin section sticks out as very poor research and promotion. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It is of a piece with Dana Ullman's bitching on HuffPo about how biased we are. The most charitable characterisation of Martin would be Quixotic, but given his defence of Wakefield and promotion of Wilyman and the OPV-AIDS conjecture it is at least as likely that he has gone full antivax. Supervising and approving of a PhD of the atrocious lack of rigour of Wilyman's does not speak well of the man. I mean, a PhD thesis is not supposed to make statements of "fact" with no source that are flat out false. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

removal of intelligent design item

Reverted WP:BOLD removal by user:NorthBySouthBaranof. This article isn't limited to only political ideological bias, it also covers epistemological bias. One type of that is religious-based beliefs. As such, the case is relevant to the article. -- Netoholic @ 10:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, then we need to explain that by policy, Wikipedia bases its content on reliable secondary sources, and the overwhelming majority of reliable secondary sources don't treat intelligent design as science; notably, federal courts have even ruled that ID is not science (I guess they're epistemologically biased too). Also, the article you cite doesn't criticise Wikipedia itself; it's repeating attributed criticism by the Discovery Institute, a religious organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

We should not use this page to debate the validity, only state the claim of bias. The main article's cover this in detail. Your correction to the attribution is correct, but I do wish you'd slow down and wait for responses here. --Netoholic @ 17:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No, we should use this page to assess whether claims of "bias" by creationists are a valid criticism of Wikipedia. Spolier: No they aren't. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Founder Bias

Entire section appears to be sock of Hidden Tempo vs. others. O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Need to find a place somewhere in the article, probably a new section, for notes on the acknowledged anti-Trump founder of Wikipedia: Wales signs open letter in protest of Donald Trump Wales admits to disliking Donald Trump and fantasizes about celebrating in the case of an impeachment: ""It's true that I don't like Donald Trump, I wouldn't vote for him and I think he's likely to get impeached. And I'll be having a party that night." In the same interview about his WikiTribune, he entertained hiring "possibly even pro-Trump" journalists, with the natural implication being that anti-Trump personnel would be preferred. I don't know if it's proper etiquette to ping the founder, so I didn't, but anyone can add the ping code if that's more appropriate since his name was mentioned. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia states, "Although Wikipedia was founded by Jimmy Wales, he is not personally responsible for our content." Before adding a new section about the founder's acknowledged anti-Trump bias, we need to discuss the extent to which Wales still personally influences Wikipedia. If he retains little or no control, then references to his current bias would be irrelevant. KalHolmann (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Any suggestion that being anti-Trump is a sign of bias is a classic, ignorant, US-centric position. Almost all the world is Anti-Trump. It could be argued that any pro-Trump material at all is a sign of bias. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Further, the fact that someone doesn't like a particular person or party is not an indication of bias. The word is overused. O3000 (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC) :::@HiLo48: Let's be a bit more mindful of how we discuss improvements to Wikipedia articles, and inflammatory language. The English Wikipedia is an American website, headed up by American executives and board members, with an American founder who is no fan of the president of the United States. Company policy is largely influenced by its board members and co-founders, of which Wales is both. The information is relevant to the article, particularly in light of the widely accepted acknowledgement that Wikipedia articles slant heavily to the left. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC) And that post could easily be translated to "We Americans own this place, so what we say goes, and the rest of the world can just......". Thank you for proving my point. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC) :::::Sure, one could translate it that way. If English isn't one's first language, one could absolutely arrive at the translation that you quoted above. What makes you so certain I am an American? The above facts are just that: facts. Steve Jobs had enormous influence on Apple. Jeff Bezos has enormous influence on Amazon. And yes, Jimmy Wales had and continues to have enormous influence on Wikipedia. This really shouldn't be a point of disagreement. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Unless you have reliable secondary sources which discuss Wales' personal opinions in relationship to purported ideological bias on Wikipedia, what you propose is classic WP:SYNTH and is inappropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC) He's got no influence on editing, he has tremendous influence on financing it. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC) @Mr. Daniel Plainview:, where are you getting your information about the Foundation? Here's a link to its board[2] It's clearly anything but American. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC) ::::::::I can't speak to the nationality of individual board members Doug Weller, but Wikimedia Foundation says it was founded in Florida and headquartered in California. About his influence on editing, Jimbo Wales edits the encyclopedia regularly, and not just his own user/talk pages. He also helped craft the policies (which many argue overwhelmingly favor liberal editors), administrator selection procedure (which does not include any language regarding a need for diversity of thought or ideological leanings), and hears appeals from blocked/banned users (which in the political arena, is almost always conservative editors[3]). I'd say Wales' ideological leanings are quite significant. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC) You should know their nationality now. Why do you make statements without checking to see if they are accurate. Wikipedia is an international organisation and its board and staff reflect that, yet you stated as fact they were American. He's a Libertarian and does not hear bans or appeals. Doug Weller talk 21:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC) :::::::::I was making the point that I wasn't talking about the nationalities of the individuals who work for Wikimedia, rather if the organization itself is American. It was founded and is headquartered in the United States. That's my personal definition of an American enterprise. Which statements did I make that are inaccurate? WP:Appeals to Jimbo contradicts what you're saying about Jimbo not intervening. I don't know about Wales being a libertarian, but if so, he's a libertarian who despises Donald Trump so much that he wants to have "a party" if he gets his wish of getting him impeached. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Mr. Daniel Plainview, you wrote I wasn't talking about the nationalities of the individuals who work for Wikimedia, rather if the organization itself is American. I see. So, what exactly did you mean when you said The English Wikipedia is an American website, headed up by American executives and board members? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC) ::::::::::: A bit nitpicky with that "got ya," Waleswatcher, although by my count about a third of the members are Americans, which is a plurality. I didn't say "exclusively American board members," if you want to get into semantics. While we're on the subject though, it's very informative for this article that Mr. Nasiretti has a seat, who heads up one of of the most militantly leftist blog networks publishing on the Internet today: Gizmodo. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC) WP:Appeals to Jimbo is an essay, largely drawing from a quote from 2004. It's been many years since Jimbo Wales played an active role in the dispute resolution. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Neither of those sources say that Wales' protest of Trump affects Wikipedia content in any way. –dlthewave ☎ 01:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Back to the Board issue. I count 2 Americans, have I missed one? In any case, the argument was that the board was American, thus the issue is Americans vs non-Americans, and 2 is a minority, not a plurality, There's a bigger issue here though. @Mr. Daniel Plainview: you took an editor to ANI for calling a self-admitted Islamophobe an Islamophobe.[4] Yet here you seem to be calling Raju Narisetti a militant leftist on the basis he heads what you call "one of of the most militantly leftist blog networks publishing on the Internet today: Gizmodo." Gizmodo of course is not the network, it's Gizmodo Media Group that's the network, and it's certainly what you describe. This is too silly to take you to ANI but you really should retract it given your earlier report to ANI. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC) :: This doesn't really have anything to do with improving the article or this section, but Wales and Battles are both native Alabamans, and Narisetti began school in America 28 years ago and according to his LinkedIn profile, has been working at American news orgs since graduating from Indiana University. Narisetti currently lives in Brooklyn, so I think it's safe to call Mr. Narisetti an American and presume he's a citizen. So that's 3 Americans, and the other seven members hail from France, Spain, Bahrain, Canada, Poland, Ukraine, and Germany. As Wiktionary's 4th definition defines a plurality as "A number or part of a whole which is greater than any other number or part, but not necessarily a majority", and America is the only country that appears more than once (or thrice, in this case), the term applies. Regarding the ANI report, that's a mischaracterization of what happened (which I think you know), as I reported that individual for making an unsourced attack on a living person and refusing to provide a source once asked. So you're saying "I seem to be calling Raju Narisetti a militant leftist". We should look at what I said to see if there's validity to that. Mr. Nasiretti has a seat, who heads up one of of the most militantly leftist blog networks. The first bolding is in regards to Narisetti, who I said "has a seat [on the Wikimedia board]". The second bolding states that he leads one of the most "militantly leftist blog networks". Given that, your assertion that I called Narisetti himself a "militant leftist" doesn't exactly hold up (to say the least), as the words "blog networks" follows the adjective. I stand by my very well-sourced statement that Narisetti has a seat on the Wikimedia board, and that Gizmodo operates a virulently leftist/anti-Trump network of blogs. If you're saying I should retract, I will, since you're an administrator and I essentially have to do what you say, but I see no Wikipedia policy protecting Jezebel and Deadspin from being called "militantly leftist" (not that there's anything wrong with that). In either case, it seems Narisetti hasn't been in that post since last month. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC) refusing to provide a source. That would be what I would call a falsehood (to be polite). I didn’t refuse to do anything. You need to work on your WP:TE style. If your goal here is to convince; that’s not an effective manner. O3000 (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC) :::::^ Veering even further off topic. You're more than welcome to continue the discussion on my talk page. My goal here is to respond to Doug Weller in furthering the improvement of this article, without other editors bursting onto the scene to distract from the topic at hand and disrupting the talk page. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC) If you don't want me to respond to attacks -- don't make them. Simple. And, editors bursting onto the scene to distract from the topic at hand and disrupting the talk page is casting aspersions. We are not on a BATTLEFIELD. O3000 (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC) :::::::Who attacked you? Also pointing out disruption once disruption occurs isn't an aspersion. If you don't want to battle, stop hounding me from article to article, making snarky off-topic remarks that have nothing to do with improving the article. Go to my talk page if you want to have a debate about something else besides Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC) More false accusations and aspersions. But, I won't take you to ANI. You can add another insult below. I won't respond to it. O3000 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC) ::::::::I try to be careful in my language, which is why I said that you "seem to be calling" him a militant leftist, which seemed a reasonable assumption. The statement about leftist blog networks seems very odd, who calls it that besides you? And Deadspin? Doug Weller talk 15:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Well my apologies if you had that impression, as I thought it was fairly obvious that I was calling the blog network "militantly leftist," not the living person. I have no idea if Narisetti fits that description, but generally CEO's don't choose to lead media companies if they fundamentally disagree with its political leanings. You wouldn't see Jill Abramson, former New York Times exec. editor who carries a Barack Obama comfort doll in her purse[5], take a leadership position at Breitbart or InfoWars, for example. In contrast, it's not surprising at all that someone who relies on such a doll for comfort worked at the New York Times (given its activism for the DNC). The leftist characterization isn't odd at all if you look at their content (I have their RSS feed bookmarked). Jezebel is (almost) off the charts left [6]. Deadspin, too[7]. You wouldn't think of a sports blog normally pushing anti-Trump and far-left propaganda, but indeed they do. Social justice programs, Black Lives Matter, the NFL kneeling controversy, and so on. Note that I am not saying whether this is "good" or "bad," and their writers aren't ashamed or try to hide their mission at all. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Comment: I propose that we close this discussion per WP:NOTAFORUM. Even if the founder and board members are Americans, militant leftists, Trump criticizers, etc, no reliable sources have been brought forward to support including this in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC) ::Quotes from Jimmy Wales aren't reliable sources for the opinions of Jimmy Wales? I say we just leave the discussion open with the provision that any further comments should be related to content proposals, without any off-topic disruptions and side topic distractions. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Media bias/Fact check is confusing because it has a left-right arrow which indicates bias, plus text, and they simply don't match. Thus [[Jezebel (website)|Jezebel]"Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for Women. Without Airbrushing." shows up as way left but is described as "not really a political news source. It is more opinion based that is focused on entertainment news. Jezebel is biased in favor of liberal causes through story choices and wording". It's basically an amateur website - a couple of useful sources on it, particularly the second one.[8][9]. Deadspin's arrow shows it as less left than Jezebel, but its wording suggesting it's further left. The site shouldn't be taken seriously. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC) ::::Their ratings are pretty accurate from what I've seen, but you're right in that it's not all that professional. I personally don't need that site for confirmation since I consume Deadspin and AV Club content on a semi-regular basis, and I see what kind of rubbish they slip into articles to influence their readers and give them what they want. At the end of the day, I wouldn't try to create content for this article based on Mr. Nasiretti's affiliation with Gizmodo. Wales' political leanings are far more significant and relevant IMHO. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Struck through a Hidden Tempo sock, Mr. Daniel Plainview. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

2013 Croatian Wikipedia

In 2013, the Croatian-language version of Wikipedia gained media attention after the daily newspaper Jutarnji list reported on critic's concerns that administrators and editors on the website were projecting a right-wing bias into topics such as the Ustashe regime, anti-fascism, Serbs, the LGBT community, and gay marriage. Many of the critics were former editors of the website who said they had been exiled for expressing concern. The small size of the Croatian Wikipedia — as of September 2013, it had 466 active editors of which 27 were administrators — was cited as a major factor. Two days after the story broke, Croatian Minister Željko Jovanović advised students not to use the website. In 2018, historian Hrvoje Klasic of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb told the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) that he often refers students to the English Wikipedia instead of their native Croatian, especially for topics on Croation history. Goran Hutinec, also a historian at Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, said of the Croatian Wikipedia that is has "many shortcomings, factual mistakes and ideologically loaded language".

References

I have attempted to place in this in the "Public Opinion" section, but was reverted. I'm leaving it here for you guys to do with it as you please. -- Netoholic @ 05:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I reverted it because of firstly, as you said yourself, "The small size of the Croatian Wikipedia". Secondly, it was five years ago. Thirdly, it's Croatia, a beautiful country, but irrelevant to English Wikipedia today. Finally, it seems unwise to be editing an article whose deletion is currently being discussed, unless you can show us clearly how that addition makes the article better. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This is already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia - Croatian Wikipedia#2013 controversy about right-wing bias - so its appropriate to include as a summary here because it directly relates to the topic of this article. This article was never scoped as only English Wikipedia. Whether you think it improves the article is something only you can decide. -- Netoholic @ 05:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a criticism of Croatian Wikipedia, not Wikipedia. The studies in this article point out that small, ideologically homogeneous editing communities result in more biased content. When people hear "Wikipedia" they mean either "English Wikipedia" or "all Wikimedia projects". This is not relevant to either, and we know from the studies that it would be actively misleading to apply it to the English Wikipedia or to all WMF projects. So, exclude as misleading. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The lead reads "analysis and criticism of the reliability of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, and especially its English-language site" - Croatian Wikipedia IS Wikipedia, and the scope of any of the broad articles in Category:Wikipedia includes other languages. Its written very clearly in a way which would never "mislead" readers that it applies to English Wikipedia or to all WMF projects - "Croatian" appears throughout. This 2013 experience corroborates the various analysis studies (pointing the the bias vulnerability in low-population editing areas). It is also an interesting example of a right-wing "takeover", which contrasts with most mainstream criticism that brings up left-wing bias. -- Netoholic @ 08:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

In discussing "analysis and criticism of the reliability of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, and especially its English-language site", to single out a tiny project like Croatian Wikipedia is blatantly WP:UNDUE. It's cherry-picking, and the studies in this very article indicate why it's an entirely expected result which is inherently unrepresentative of what happens in any larger project. The most you can say is that this provides an example supporting the finding that smaller communities lead to mroe bias, but you'd need a reliable independent secondary source making exactly that point to avoid WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This is in no way "singling out" or "cherry-picking" - The article is a work in progress and even I don't know how it'll end up. You seem to be expecting a lot from one editor on a 4-day old article. The Daily Dot source covers the "size" issue - "And over time, studies have shown that English language Wikipedia has moved toward political neutrality. One of the main differences at play is the relative size of Croatian Wikipedia versus English Wikipedia.". Does The Daily Dot not qualify as a reliable independent secondary source? -- Netoholic @ 10:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely is, because hrWP is a tiny project, smaller than Conservapedia even. It's not an example of "ideological bias" of Wikipedia, it's an example of the risks of setting up multiple small subprojects in a region prone to militant nationalism. Which is effectively what we say in our article on Croatian Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have an "ideological bias" towards Croat nationalism and in fact the article shows that the evidence of issues on hrWP is taken in some cases from comparing with enWP, which proves that the bias is not that of Wikipedia.

Some Volvos rust. Using that to assert that all Volvos are prone to rust would be the exact opposite of the truth. Hence: cherry-picking. The problem this case identifies is not the problem you are trying to prove Wikipedia has. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing in the text I provided implies ANY extrapolation. Also, you seem to misunderstand the scope of the article. its not "Wikipedia's bias" its "bias on Wikipedia"... as in the emergent bias, not any intended bias. And please stop trying to claim you know my motivations - I write about what interests me - next you might claim I'm a cyborg POV-pusher or some nonsense. Sometimes the only motive is the one actually stated, this is one of those times. -- Netoholic @ 10:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I await your creation of Wikipedia as a balanced encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure thats a WP:POVTITLE, or it could redirect here. Would you really only believe me if I write something like that just to prove my street cred? BTW, HiLo, I await your creation of any article. -- Netoholic @ 10:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You think. And I disagree. So now you start an RfC to see if there is consensus to include this content. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm an eventualist. Someone in the future will see this bit and perhaps decide to include it. (Hi future editors! Do we have flying cars yet?) -- Netoholic @ 11:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I am more interested in asking them if there were riots after President Pence pardoned Donald Trump, but whatever. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Why don’t we just change the lede to specifically say the article is about the English-language edition? We can’t include claimed biases of all 291 active versions, many of which are not heavily edited. O3000 (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This section would still be appropriate since it's about a Croatian Minister and professors telling students to use English Wikipedia. --Netoholic @ 20:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it would still be inappropriate because it's not about the ideological bias of Wikipedia as normally understood, it's about the bias of a small cohort of like-minded people taking over a tiny WMF project. The claimed "bias" is that of the admins, and there are only 20 of them. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to pull back a bit and look at it from the outside - do you think that matters to the average reader? Wikipedia articles are not signed and sourced. Authorship is consensus, and readers don't see the mechanisms behind what's presented on the screen. They don't know if an article is written by one POV-pusher, pushed to a POV state by a corrupt admin class, or translated (reliably) from enwiki. These are the public concerns here and its why the mainstream media eats up stories like this about bias on Wikipedia. This is a fascinating case, and if we were writing about any other company, this sort of story would be included in that article in a snap. Imagine if a top government official told people to stop watching a national news network claiming they were biased or "fake"... that'd be noteworthy just like this Croation story is. -- Netoholic @ 05:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Full marks for unconscious irony. Yes it matters. It matters for the reasons outlined above, and by the academic research in the article. Look at hr:Posebno:Statistika, which I linked above There are 20 admins on hrWP, we have single articles that receive more edits per day than that entire project. It is not representative of Wikipedia, and the ideological bias of a small group of admins in a minor language project is a very far cry from being relevant to discussion of the purported ideological bias of Wikipedia. The ideological bias of Wikipedia is well known and well understood. It is somewhat liberal, but close to the global political centre. The Overton window has moved so far to the right in the US that some conservatives see Wikipedia as basically Marxist, but that is their problem not ours. Objective studies - which this article includes - show that Wikipedia is, in the main, neutral, and that we are at our best when editors with differing views collaborate. Hence some of our articles on Israel-Palestine are often held up as being very good. What we do not have is a bias towards Croat nationalism that obscures the nature of neo-Nazism. I think it is pretty clear that our article on neo-Naxism doesn't describe it as the opposite of what it is, which is one of the complaints about hrWP. In criticism of Wikipedia you could make an entirely valid point about the vulnerability of small projects to nationalist agendas, especially in the Balkan states where the language is likely to be inextricably linked to nationalist views, but as a point about the supposed ideological bias of Wikipedia it is actively misleading. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I kinda stopped reading after you said "The ideological bias of Wikipedia is well known and well understood" - can I expect you'll change your AfD vote now since you seem to acknowledge this well-known topic? Whether its bias is boringly, provably neutral on net, that is just as rousing a topic as if it were horribly, clearly biased. In fact, the studies take great effort to remark on how well our process works when people of multiple viewpoints work together and incorporate their views, and how terrible it works when the debates become one-sided. This is why its so exciting as a topic - a topic the world wants to see. -- Netoholic @ 09:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope. The ideological bias of Wikipedia is well-known and well understood and negligible for all practical purposes. You wrote this article because you have failed to get a significant number of right wing talking points reflected as fact. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok but I have to ask. Why would I? I wrote this article incorporating studies that show Wikipedia in a very positive light. If I'm the frustrated righty that you think I am, why would I devote hours of research and editing just to put together something that is clearly not an attack on Wikipedia? -- Netoholic @ 09:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You also included extremely partisan sources criticising us for being "biased" towards empirically established fact. And per the above, you have argued tendentiously for those inclusions. I am not the onlyone to conclude that this article was created in furtherance of a content dispute. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I copied relevant existing items from other articles to incorporate here because to do otherwise would be incomplete work. -- Netoholic @ 12:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I searched for specific text. You wrote some of the more tendentious material yourself. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Good pick up. That's a common approach of POV pushers. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Very selective use of Wikipedia rules and policies is another common strategy of POV pushers. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Of THAT we can agree, and we have studies that show that. --Netoholic @ 03:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Wales "claimed" vs "stated"

I reverted a WP:BOLD minor edit by user:NorthBySouthBaranof which changed "claimed" to "stated". In the quote, Jimbo admits that there were no surveys or studies regarding numbers, so he can't make a firm statement about them. "Claimed" isn't something we use often, but its fine in the context. -- Netoholic @ 10:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it's 100% never acceptable, per WP:CLAIM. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Stated" is simply too definitive when in the same quote he acknowledged there was no data behind his estimations. Changing it to "said". NorthBySouthBaranof, please do not reverted challenged edits, slow down and allow people time to respond. Doing otherwise can be seen as edit warring - WP:BRD. -Netoholic @ 17:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you stating that he didn't state it? State doesn't mean it's true. O3000 (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Claimed" is simply unacceptable. If you had changed it to "said" in the first place rather than simply reverting me, we would have had a productive series of edits rather than a series of reverts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There are many things ALL editors can do to extend courtesy to others. --Netoholic @ 02:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I will point out that WP:CLAIM does not say use is banned, just a "word to watch". In this context, where its clear from the quote that Jimbo is giving an estimation, which he admits there is no evidence for, is a justifiable and appropriate use of "claimed" which no typical reader would get confused about. "said" is fine if it stops the reverts, but I will still think "claimed" is better in this case. -- Netoholic @ 04:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been thinking from the start that the title of this article is problematic. I am now seriously concerned about the ideological bias of Netoholic. We are not seeing objective contributions here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am just discussing English word use here, don't get all like that. -- Netoholic @ 04:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

And I'm just wondering why. (It's always important in a debate to try to understand the true motivations of all players.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Wales statements

According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales in April 2006: "The Wikipedia community is very diverse, from liberal to conservative to libertarian and beyond. If averages mattered, and due to the nature of the wiki software (no voting) they almost certainly don't, I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." When asked about the impact this slant had on the encyclopedia's goal of neutrality, Wales said "I do not think it affects the goal at all."

— Glaser, Mark (April 21, 2006). "Email Debate::Wales Discusses Political Bias on Wikipedia". MediaShift. Retrieved 22 May 2018.

I find the removal of this section by two editors recently to be unusual because the founder, throughout its history, is often asked about his views on the state of Wikipedia - and NPOV/bias in particular. This section also serves as a baseline historical account from the early days of the website. I see no reason not to include this here. Any similar article would include such statements from a founder. -- Netoholic @ 06:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV summary

One of the core principles of Wikipedia is its stated goal of creating topic entries with a "neutral point of view" (NPOV) where all significant, relevant viewpoints are presented fairly. Disagreements between editors often arise while working on entries about how to approach this goal, which can lead to heated arguments and accusations of "POV pushing" (insertion of certain points of view to an unfair degree). The process of discussion around these issues often provides a constructive framework for more viewpoints to be expressed and incorporated.

References

This short summary of NPOV and its impact was removed. I believe this is fully appropriate for this article. NPOV is the websites core policy in relation to ideological bias. -- Netoholic @ 06:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

COIN discussion

I have opened a discussion about "COI" considerations" for this page at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia. We'll see if anything useful can be worked out. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Closed that and opened a second one Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia_2 Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Are Hungary and Germany full of white supremacists?

Under Effects, we have "A white supremacist wiki called Metapedia, popular in Hungary and Germany, is published..." It's well sourced. In fact the source says "especially popular" in those places. But it bothers me. There is no explanation given for that statement. I don't believe Hungary and Germany are especially full of white supremacists. So what's going on? Should we really be repeating claims like that with nothing more than a single article to make that implication? Even if true, I believe we need to word it better, or find a better explanation, or....? Ideas? HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the "especially" wording seemed a bit much, but I felt the source made a point to include mention and we should too. I am curious to look more into the founding of Metapedia and whether it was perceived bias on English, German, or some other language or combination that led to it. Including it helps us keep the focus global (as much as we can based on sources). -- Netoholic @ 04:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am more curious about the claim of its popularity in Germany and Hungary. What's that about? If we cannot explain something that reads pretty much like a slur against those countries, I very much doubt that we should be including it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleted it. We do not need to copy all the information a source has. The "16 languages" part is enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Good move. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Several sources point out that the site is run in Sweden and that the Hungary language version is the largest edition of it. I think these are key points to include if the predominance is there. -- Netoholic @ 05:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't, for reasons I have given above. Can you explain the popularity of white supremacism in Hungary? HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

We cover what is predominantly in the sources, even if it offends personal sensibilities. I'll do breakdown of the sources with quotes as I go through. -- Netoholic @ 05:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

We only include content that makes sense. The claim about Germany and Hungary doesn't. Maybe that source is actually crap. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources and quotes about Metapedia:

• Welcome to the Wikipedia of the Alt-Right: "There’s Metapedia, a wiki with a white supremacist bent, which is published in 16 languages but is especially popular in Hungary and Germany. (On Metapedia, Barack Obama isn’t just a former president, he’s a “mixed race former president,” and the Holocaust is a genocide only according to "politically correct history.") (other mentions later in the article)
• Ikea Fascism: Metapedia and the Internationalization of Swedish Generic Fascism (2015): Very detailed and fully focused on that wiki. Notable things relevant to this article include "Swedish pan-European web encyclopaedia Metapedia, a fascist equivalent of the mainstream Wikipedia", "since mainstream media, including encyclopaedias, are considered to be infested with lies, there is a need, according to Metapedia, for an alternative", chart of article counts and "the Hungarian version is by far the most extensive".
• Conservapedia too pinko? Try Metapedia: "Those among you who feel that Conservapedia - the 'conservative encyclopedia you can trust' dedicated to countering liberal bias - is not sufficiently tough on Marxist-Leninist dogma are directed forthwith to Metapedia, the 'alternative encyclopedia dedicated to the pro-European cultural struggle'."
• Wikipedia U, pg 116: "Still other sources like Conservapedia and Metapedia, 'an electronic encyclopedia which focuses on culture, art, science, philosophy and politics' that 'gives us the opportunity to present a more balanced and fair image of the pro-European struggle,' are best described as ideological correctives to Wikipedia."

I'll add more as I come across them. So far though, I'd say, the European focus of the wiki should be stated, its home location in Sweden, and mention of Hungarian as its top language. We have overlapping, good sources providing these details as important so we should incorporate them (though just in a single sentence for now to match the other listed wikis) - essentially a one-sentence version of what's already part of the Metapedia article lead. -- Netoholic @ 06:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find it quite difficult discussing things with you. I constantly feel like I'm going round in circles.

I am not arguing about the content of the sources. I'm wondering about its truth. Tell me more about all those white supremacists in Germany and Hungary. Roughly how many are there? Maybe it's a large fraction of a really tiny number, so statistically meaningless. The claim in the source seems either wrong, or misleading at best. Can you explain it? We don't post scurrilous, insulting nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

We do not attempt to tell WP:TRUTH, we go by what sources predominantly say about topics. This study includes a web traffic chart. Just because say that the Hungarian language is the largest version, doesn't imply anything about Hungary or its people in any general sense. We're just reporting what sources take note of. I also repeat - all of this is already on Metapedia, all that is called for in this article is a short one line about it. -- Netoholic @ 06:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I repeat - We don't post scurrilous, insulting nonsense. I'm from the city that gave the world Rupert Murdoch. I have been watching his journals all my life. They are excellent sources for football results, not so much for the doings of political parties he disagrees with. Wikipedia has to be selective. We don't just find any source and copy nonsense from it. The claim about Hungary and Germany reads like insulting garbage to me. It needs confirmation from somewhere else before we publish it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Metapedia is relevant only in as much as it refutes the core premise that Wikipedia is biased. Conservapedia, Infogalactic and other forks exist solely because Wikipedia is not biased. Thankfully shitlords and neo-Nazis are still a minority, and history clearly shows them to be wrong.. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• It's relevant because sources mention it in relation to the Wikipedia and ideology. Not for what it "refutes". --Netoholic @ 18:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You say. And I disagree. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

OK JzG, let me expand -multiple sources provide overlapping coverage that these forks were created due to claims of bias, the topic is completely and clearly relevant to the article topics. As it is considered Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others, this section will be restored soon. If you have concerns, use section cleanup tags or inline cleanup tags to mark specific concerns. Deleting a section that contains multiple reliable sources of obvious relevance is a non-starter. -- Netoholic @ 20:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. Somebody mentioned it once doesn't cut it. Conservapedia obviously gets included, because we have a lot of sources including analyses of the specific problem Schlafly has with reality-based projects like Wikipedia, I am still looking for a decent source for InfoGalactice that notes the motivation for its creation (GamerGate shitlords pissed that we reflected the media consensus that they are misogynist asshats). Any fork where we can't show from multiple sources why it was created, is not a valid inclusion in an article on systemic bias in Wikipedia - that would amount to teasing an article out of blow-by-blow accounts of off-wiki fights. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"ideological bias on Wikipedia has been mooted"

"ideological bias on Wikipedia has been mooted" - woohoo boys I think we can go home now! Nothing more to see or talk about! Really? This is not sourced, it a gross violation of WP:OR/speculation stated in Wikipedia's voice, and is counter-factual on its face. The prior version of the lead was neutral and consistent with the broad concerns which are evidence in the statements of purpose in the various studies and the general sense of the media. I also object to these general "bull in a china shop" reverts which revert unrelated minor changes (see also [10]) - please show some editorial control. -- Netoholic @ 21:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The edits were intended to fix the POV lede that did not clearly identify a valid article topic. This article is on life support, because it appears to exist only as a vessel for POV collation of random magazine articles and other unconvincing sources. Whoever wrote that lede, the one you restored, was the mooter. Nobody else mooted ideological bias. The revised language was an improvement in my opininion. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the intent, you've used a word "mooted" (meaning "no longer relevant") which is not supported by any source. Its a speculative claim spoken in Wikipedia voice. That the mainstream still covers issues of bias is proof of the non-mooted nature of the concerns. The second sentence of the lead already covers (in a much better way) the findings of academic analysis. But nothing supports "mooted". -- Netoholic @ 22:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No that's not the meaning of "mooted" Problem solved. You can remove the tag you just placed on the word. It makes no sense in the mainstream meaning of "mooted". There may have been other meanings in the 15th Century, but we needn't worry about them. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

As written, your preferred version attributes motives to the researchers which are not stated in the sources, so is WP:SYN. The current version is less obviously leading the reader. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

...but is written in appallingly sloppy and ambiguous language. This article is becoming less and less encyclopaedic as time goes on and more unhappy campers turn up with their beef. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed more speculation. It's now tighter, more neutral, and accurate. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Much better. SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is being fundamentally vandalized by the same set of editors that fought for its deletion as they come to realize that's not likely going to happen. Shameful. NPOV can be achieved by adding material, not erasing it. --Netoholic @ 23:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. NPOV is unlikely to be achieved through abuse. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Forcing the article to be less NPOV and calling editors with whom you disagree “shameful” will not help your case. O3000 (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

People wanted the article to be deleted because it was bad. Since that is not going to happen, removing the bad parts is the second-best solution. There is nothing shameful about that.

"NPOV can be achieved by adding material, not erasing it." This is a really crazy claim. NPOV can be achieved by deleting POV coming from unreliable sources and by putting POV into context by ascribing it to a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV "neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Wikipedia depends on us progressively adding to our topics from the realm of human knowledge. If someone considers an item "POV" but its reliably sourced, then the way to achieve NPOV is to add additional viewpoints that are also sourced. A completely blank page is "NPOV" too, but that doesn't mean it should be our goal. I direct the above editors to start making use of the vast assortment of inline tags to aid in collaboration by identifying specific areas of concern. Slash and burning is counterproductive to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Even better, I ask that once this farcical AfD is done that they perhaps take a bit of time away from the article and give it some room to develop. These blanket removals of content hurt everyone interested in this topic - no matter what your viewpoint is - because it takes away the framework we're trying to build the article from. -- Netoholic @ 04:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Representing all the views on the topic sounds wonderful, but in this case the topic itself is NPOV. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

With your reasoning, you can argue against deleting an edit containing hundreds of copies of "PENIS!". The quality of text must be a factor, and it must be allowed to delete stupid bullshit. If there is any point to arguing, your reasoning must go beyond "adding - good! Deleting - bad!" You have to be able to give a real reason why the text in question is an improvement. All you have given us in this section is empty rhetoric. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That's simple strawmanning. Respond to what I said - don't make up a flimsy half-assed parody of what I said and then pretend to defeat it. The text in question is an improvement because it is well-sourced. If people think it is POV, they can tag it for future improvement or find new sources and add them as balancing viewpoints. Deleting sourced statements simply takes away any structure the article would have. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that was removed was so egregious that it couldn't wait a day, a week, or longer to get edited for balance or for new sources to be added. -- Netoholic @ 07:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

In two threads now you're sitting on an argument of "It's sourced, so we can include it". Not all sources are worth using. We don't use all content from a source. Yours is a weak argument. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

My entire point is that even if you think its a weak source, there is no need to immediately remove a whole section because of it. We have inline cleanup tags to address just these problems. They alert readers and editors of a potential problem WITHOUT destroying the overall structure of the developing article. They are a collaboration tool and I utterly welcome them. If you delete a whole section and ignore these important tools of collaboration, you're just being difficult to work with. -- Netoholic @ 08:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the closure of the deletion debate with no clear resolution has solved nothing. Many if us do not see this as a developing article. We see it as a POV mess. The fact that it wasn't deleted due to indecisiveness of the closing Admin doesn't change my view on that. I won't stop arguing against adding more garbage to an ever growing heap of POV garbage. This article cannot be saved. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Full marks for creative use of irony. "Difficult to work with"? Do you possess a mirror? Guy (Help!) 22:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a strawman. "Adding - good! Deleting - bad!" is the gist of your reasoning in this section. And "it is sourced" is not a good reason either. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not an incoherent collection of references to sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)