Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

When far is too far.

 Courtesy link: Reform UK

I'm new at this and uncertain if this is the correct forum, but it seems as good a good starting point as any. I've noticed edits in an article changed from "right-wing" to "far right-wing" then back again. This worries me for several reasons.

First, the power of a single word. The slant analysis doesn't seem to allow for this. It might match "right-wing" and "far right-wing" as the same, when they trigger a wildly different set of thoughts and associations.

Second, the bar for what passes as far right is being constantly lowered in common usage. It's up to a source like this to be more disciplined. The pages on the left-right political spectrum are explicit about those meanings. Articles claiming the extremes should cite which characteristics of a person, or party justify the addition of the prefix "far".

Third, the to-and-fro of the edits would seem to indicate editors of different political views. It put me in mind of the Taiwan page being edited by ideologically opposed groups.

Fourth, the wisdom of crowds idea relies on homogeneity. If you target slant analysis at page level, things may look balanced. Within an individual page there can be fierce activity with one set of voices dominating through superior numbers.

I didn't want to mention it, but someone is bound to ask. The article in question is about a political party called Reform UK. I feel confident similar pages will suffer the same way.

Again, my apologies if this is not the correct forum. Please move and advise if necessary. Chas newport (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

We go by what wp:RS say, so what do the sources say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

There is inconsistency in the use of terminology to describe the Right in reliable sources, which is acknowledged in literature about the Right. Part of the reason for this is that European and U.S. politics were historically studied in isolation. Some writers, such as Sara Diamond, agree with you that the term right-wing is preferrable to far right. Oddly, the term right-wing today does infer extremism and is not used as a self-description except by extremists.

Some editors complain that the Left is treated differently. That's because left-wing groups typically have identifiable ideologies, such as socialism or communism, while right-wing groups do not.

What's important is that in every article it is clear what is meant by each term. If you think that Wikipedia should have a consistent use of terminology, then you should bring it up at the Village Pump. TFD (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces Thanks. That's interesting. I actually posted a reply including a quotation from the page for the term far -right, but it hasn't appeared.

I concluded that I'm showing my age (59) by associating the term with Nazism, Fascism, etc. It has now been conflated with a dozen or so additional meanings.

I do think it would help to make that distinction. Where is The Village Pump? Chas newport (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chas newport: Where did you post a reply? I'm not seeing it your contributions, did it fail to post? ––FormalDude (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude I posted it here, but pasted with all the hyperlinks in. Pasting as "plain text" has solved it. Chas newport (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump. Let us know if you post there.

That's what I always understood the term far right to mean and what it means in much of the literature. But it also included a number of similar groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, that did not derive from historical fascism or nazism. Hence the need for an umbrella term that grouped them all together. TFD (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces I've posted there. Chas newport (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Second, the bar for what passes as far right is being constantly lowered in common usage. Are you sure that far-right isn't just becoming more prevalent and mainstream, resulting in the increased usage of the word? I agree that there is confusion around the meaning of the word, but ultimately we have to respect whatever reliable sources say. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude Probably both. The page on far-right would seem to indicate the addition of more characteristics classified as far-right is a significant factor:

"Historically, 'far-right politics' has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views."

A term with 17 characteristics, any one of which might cause something or someone to be called far-right during discourse has little utility. Chas newport (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

That is the historical definition. But more recently it is often applied to any groups that are to the right of the traditional right-wing parties. In the 1980s, there were a number of new parties with no connection with historical fascism that advocated for lower taxes or restricting immigration. They are usually for want of a better term called right-wing populists.

To cite a concrete example, Nigel Farage's UKIP was to the right of the Tories, but it certainly was not as extreme as the Nick Griffin's BNP. The two parties were distinct and joined separate caucuses in the European Parliament. TFD (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces Exactly. I can see four distinct waves in the text from the "far-right" page.

1 The original Fascism, Nazism and Falangism.

2 Neo-Nazis, etc. which attempt to revive those.

3 An expansion to include populist and nationalist parties.

4 A contemporary addition other people or parties seen as reactionary.

Lumping these together under a single term is unhelpful to the reader. They will interpret it according to their age, attitudes and political leanings.

I'm sure many people think UKIP was far-right, which loses the distinction from the BNP, EDL, etc.

I'm new to this, but I wonder if explicitly identifying those waves in sections which can be referenced individually might solve the problem the same way dictionaries do with overloaded word meanings.

As a bare minimum some terms should be moved to "right-wing", rather than "far-right" but I wouldn't know where to start to do that justice. Chas newport (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views." Some of these overlap. Ultranationalism seeks the hegemony, supremacy, or control of one nation over others, and favors political violence to achieve its goals. Chauvinism seeks the superiority or dominance of one group over all others, and favors a "fanatical devotion" to the cause. Xenophobia is the fear or dislike for anything foreign or "strange", and manifests as a " fear of losing a national, ethnic, or racial identity". All three cases involve some kind of in-group seeking action against out-groups or the perceived "Other". And some lucky group will inevitably get to be the favorite target for attacks by the fanatics of such ideologies. Dimadick (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dimadick So it's an even bigger mess than I first thought. Way too much to lump under one, hyphenated tag of "far-right", wouldn't you say?

Not sure if Wikipedia can single handedly fix it, but one reliable source trying to shed some light would be a start. Chas newport (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Problem is "right-wing" is even more vague. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

That's why reliable sources either implicitly or explicitly define the terms they are using. My concern is when Wikipedia articles use these terms without doing this. But that's nothing we can resolve on this discussion page. TFD (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Agreed. We've inherited broad brush terminology from the French Revolution... then made the brush even broader! I'm trying to see a way to use the existing terms more constructively.

Even with two baskets I think we can agree too many things are in the far-right basket which dilute its historical usage. Saying "far-right" is code for dismissing opinion or policy as invalid and even evil.

It might not be possible, but my thinking is evolving because of this conversation. Chas newport (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I posted it on The Village Pump. Let's see what happens. Chas newport (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You have? Link please? Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I don't know how to do that. I'm not even sure how to find my post unless someone replies to it... which they haven't! Chas newport (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Chas newport contains all your edits. I cannot see any Village Pump edit there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed extension of the Analyses section

I have extended and updated here the review of academic literature about this topic. This is a text I originally wrote for the Italian WP (intended to be an extended version of this page, but the page was eventually not accepted for publication in the main namespace and was published as essay - debatable choice, being a literature review, but that was the choice in that project about this topic). Compared to the current version of this article, it appears to me that the text may (1) extend the literature reviewed (2) do away with references to non academic surces (3) move beyond the US focus, currently prevailing. For advice from the curators of this article as full or partial contribution to section #1. Tytire (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like good work. But if you are proposing putting in en masse, scrutiny of such requires as massive "compare and contrast" project. Also, I think that what might be seen as a "US focus" is inevitable (EN Wikipedia and the left/right sides of the US political divide, which is what most such discussions are about). Without that focus the subject of the article becomes thousands of subjects. Instances of bias of all of the Wikipedias on all of the subjects.North8000 (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@North8000 thanks for your constructive feedback. I propose the following revisions to the secton "Analyses":

• Add additional sources and case studies as reviewed in my sandbox to enhance the breadth and depth of the analysis.
• Update the title of the first subsection to "Presence of ideological bias in entries related to politics" to reflect the broader scope of the issue beyond content solely related to US politics. This change acknowledges that additional academic literature addresses the presence of ideological bias in political content across various contexts.
• Remove references to media sources that were initially included to support the case studies. They seem to me unnecessary as they do not contribute to the main limitation of the article, which is the absence of secondary sources. This limitation may align with the current state of research in this domain, although some recent primary research papers include extensive literature reviews.

Regarding your point about US politics, as an encyclopedic entry, I tend to think that the article should evolve over time to capture the underlying social mechanisms at play, regardless of whether they are specific to the USA or occur elsewhere. The intention should be to focus on the underlying social dynamics rather than providing a mere listing of individual cases, to the extent that this is supported by current research. Tytire (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

More power to you. I was just commenting that when people talk about ideological bias in Wikipedia they are usually talking about left/right bias in English Wikipedia. (With "left/right" usually defined by the US meanings of those terms). To me, the social mechanisms are pretty simple. It starts with there being some type of real world contest/tussle. And the combatants see tilting the related Wikipedia articles as a way to further their cause. The more complex issue is how Wkikpedia systems intended to prevent that bias don't prevent it, are easily game-able to enable biased coverage, and often are structured and used to actually enable or promote biased coverage. And more fundamentally how bias is defined by Wikipedia. If you define neutral as "we just cover what the wiki-whitelisted people who control the megaphones say" then you certainly end up with a biased definition of "neutral" caused by a systemic problem. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Your comment highlights the importance of this article and its potential for expansion. IMO the existing literature does not entirely align with the viewpoint that Wikipedia's systems are so game-able. I rather find it interesting the hypothesis that increasing transparency in users' actual behaviors within their social mechanisms could potentially reduce the susceptibility of the system to manipulation. Tytire (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, an article on this topic has constraints that a discussion doesn't have. Since hundreds of things lead up to any happening, someone can subjectively pick any of them as the "cause". Of course the big "cause" is people seeking to further their real world agendas by biasing articles. This is unavoidable and so saying that it is the "cause" is like saying that gravity is the cause of airplane crashes. So for me the more useful question / "cause" is: "What in Wikipedia allows (or encourages) it to happen"? North8000 (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration source?

Anybody know where the cite is for the first paragraph in the collaboration section? GMG^talk 11:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Added, gone missing in my earlier editing. Thanks for spotting it. Tytire (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

“Reliable Sources”

There should be a section questioning the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page. It has Fox News and New York Post listed as red for politics. Yet has New York Times, CNN and MSNBC green. Just the Biden laptop coverup alone should be enough to call them into question. I can’t argue against the Fox News bias, but it is just ignorant to be blind or lack any insight into the left bias.Johnnytucf (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

What Biden laptop coverup? HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

During the election in 2020 NYPost editor Emma Jo Morris published verifiable info on president Biden’s involvement with his son’s Ukrainian business deals- a story now accepted as true. At the time, prior to the election, Politico, CNN, MSNBC and others published unverified reports that it was “Russian disinformation”. It looks like those stories have all been removed from their sites, but I’m sure you can find them in the web archives. Johnnytucf (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a story now accepted as true by whom? (Remember we're taking about reliable sources here.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliability is not based on the political bias of a source, but in its accuracy. Wikipedia editors have determined that Fox News and the New York Post are not sufficiently accurate in their reporting.

The fact that MSM reported people who claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story was disinformation is evidence of their bias, rather than their reliability. But all media are biased since they have to select which stories to cover and which to ignore.

In order to discuss banning Fox News in the article, you would need to provide sources that discussed potential bias in the decision.

Incidentally, those other sources are not actually left-wing as the term is generally understood by informed people. TFD (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• There are a handful of sources on the talk page banner at RSPS. But reading through a few of them, they seem to be actually pretty positive. So if this is going to get any traction, we're gonna need to start with sources that specifically mention RSPS, and specifically in a critical way dealing with ideological bias. GMG^talk 10:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason why (as long as it is sourced) we canot have a section on allegations of biases in the use or implementation of RS policies. Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Finding analysis of systemic causes would be a good thing. And IMO one of the most intelligent and useful things to cover compared to just general allegations. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Gg controversy

Probably needs mentioning, as it was a highly controversial event being fought over here on Wikipedia. 82.176.203.219 (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

What is it? HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Gamergate (harassment campaign). But again, we would need sources that specifically deal with it in terms of ideological bias on Wikipedia, and not just vague suggestions of related topics. GMG^talk 11:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Krebs et al, 2023

@X-Editor thanks for adding that very relevant paper. However, where does the paper say that "Wikipedia's content leaned slightly liberal"? I cant find that conclusion in it and I am not sure that the study was designed to indicate the extent of political slant as such. The gist of the paper is different than what is now portrayed in the article, IMO. Tytire (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

From Figure 1, I guess. Except because the error bar for Wikipedia just crosses over the middle they don't actually describe it as "leaned slightly liberal", they instead just say it's "in between" the other two wikis:

As can be seen in Fig. 1, we found the pattern we predicted, with Conser-vapedia articles leaning toward the conservative view and RationalWiki leaning toward theliberal view—with Wikipedia and Britannica as a homogeneous subgroup in between

Probably we should say the same thing. Endwise (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Or in the center. This has fail V and should be remvoed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

(It doesn't say it was in the centre either to be clear). Endwise (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

They dont say it probably because the test (figure 1) was not designed to answer the question implied by our line now. They rather wanted to test the difference between the encyclopedias on a selected sample to test the hypothesis over the influences of the respective declared policies . The sample was not designed to produce an assessment of the slant overall in absolute terms. In short, the paper does not say what we says it said, and we are not meant to interpret their results. The paper puts forward interesting results possibly relevant to this article but the summary should stick to what the authors say. Tytire (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The slightly liberal part seems to come from the graph in the study. I think another study said that Wikipedia is more biased than Britannica simply because it has more content than Britannica does, meaning there is more space for biased material, so that might be why the graph shows a slight difference between Britannica and Wikipedia, but I might just be speculating. X-Editor (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I corrected the text to summarize the conclusion of the paper and avoiding interpretations of data beyond what the authors say. Tytire (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia foundation bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Unlike Wikipedia, the Wikimedia foundation is partisan, and there have been many criticisms made of their ideological positions and claims that those positions may leak into Wikipedia. (For example, see here.) Should this be mentioned in this article? While indirect, it's a valid concern, and it reflects poorly on Wikipedia if it appears to be ignoring the existence of complaints like this. KingSupernova (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

A lot of people, including me, don't use Twitter/X, so that link is of no use to us. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The link is to a discussion involving unqualified people presenting their own conclusions based on a misrepresentation of sources.

For example, one writer claims that the Wikimedia Foundation is "partisan" because it supports a program to increase the participation of underrepresented minorities in Wikipedia.

One way to become better informed is to stop reading X posts. It attracts a lot of cranks who can't get their views published elsewhere. TFD (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think creative freedom should remain the cornerstone of Wikipedia.  Done Zemant (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, they did choose and mandate a side on the US culture war on pronouns (basing on biological sex vs. declared gender). North8000 (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: I edited to add "and mandate" simultaneous with Slatersteven's post. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

How could they not? Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Apathy. It's remarkably effortless. GMG^talk 14:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to conduct the culture war here, just noting that they picked and mandated one side. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Vague assertions are not helpful. Assuming they decided to allow no binary genders, would not deciding to only allow binary genders have also been "picking a side"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Not about that. Just about words. Deciding whether or not one can use them to refer to biological sex. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've had may fair share of disagreements with the Foundation, but yer gonna need something with more meat than a tweet to make your case. GMG^talk 15:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I hear they're even against slavery. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not picked one side on using gender pronouns. Instead, it follows the usage in reliable sources. See for example "‘He,’ ‘She,’ ‘They’ and Us" (NYT, Raillan Brooks April 5, 2017)

So the actual bias is toward reliable sources, whether using gender pronouns, or discussing evolution or climate change.

TFD (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Would you say mandating that people not use the N-word when referencing others is part of a "US culture war"? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perceived ideological bias on Wikipedia, especially on its English-language edition, has been the subj

Perceived ideological bias on Wikipedia, especially on its English-language edition, has been the subj.... What aboout ACTUAL ideological bias? Wikipedia has an idological bias of the western sphere, can this be discussed or even demonstrated by any source that isnt banned by the glowies? 2A00:23CC:B589:EF01:410D:3FD6:6C1F:867 (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Is that ideological though? Yes we can discuss this. And yes we have an article discussing it Criticism of Wikipedia which would be the place to put this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about what sources say, not about WP:TRUTH. Your question does not matter here.

I had to look up what a glowie is, and this makes neither sense nor does it look like an attempt to improve the article. --Hob Gadling (talk)

I am still non the wiser, I assumed it was an insult, but now I am less sure about even that. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"Perceived ideological bias on Wikipedia" vs "Ideological bias on Wikipedia"

There are edit wars seemingly occuring, of which I take part, between "Perceived ideological bias on Wikipedia" vs "Ideological bias on Wikipedia". Some are disputing the fact that there is any ideological bias on this platform to begin with. May those of you that dispute this perhaps discuss this matter here?

P.S. I am on the anti-percieved side :D 2A00:23CC:B589:EF01:410D:3FD6:6C1F:867 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Make a case there is, using wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• The sourcing largely presents the various discussions of bias in this article as a matter of opinion and not fact; therefore, we can't present it as fact in the article voice. Hence perceived. --Aquillion (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  If we are to follow this reasoning, a lot of issues may qualify as "perceived". We should rename, for exemple, Perceived Great depression, Perceived Ideological repression in the Soviet Union, and so on, virtually for all pages of social and cultural domains. The point seems frankly preposterous and defensive, the title as it is introduces the topic and presents facts and assessments for the reader to judge. I also find ironic the distinction between opinion and facts as being biased by the title of the article. This implies that one does not trust the capacity of the reader to make his/her own mind, and therefore the need to shape that mind starting from the title. Sounds quite biased to me ! Tytire (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Not really as most historians and economists say there was a great depression. The problem here is there is no clear consensus about this topic. Also "This implies that one does not trust the capacity of the reader to make his/her own mind, and therefore the need to shape that mind starting from the title." is an odd thing to say when arguing for us to say something in our voice rather than letting the reader decide. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  I find your point a circular logic. However, I would like to understand whether we are discussing here the title of the article or the first sentence of the inception paragraph. If the latter case, since the incipit should summarize the article, I propose that we may phrase it as "The existence or lack of ideologia bias" or "The existence of ideological bias or its absence" or similar, because the body of research summarized in the first part of the article studies that (the existence or absence of IB) and not the perception of IB (which would mean studying the opinions about WP). This proposal is if we are really afraid that the first line might ...bias the biased unable to read the article in full and grasp the fuzziness of the evidence/facts available (whose balance is neither categorically black nor white).

  Certainly the second and third parts of the article are a mix of facts and reported opinions and more difficult to categorize in one sentence.

  Nevertheless, I maintain that the concern on the first sentence (and more so if about the title) is misplaced, because it introduces the topic as a subject of inquiry and does not represent, per se, a statement of facts. Tytire (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Under the current title, IMO it covers a wide range of possibilities from "pervasive bias" to "miniscule bias". And I think that there is a lot of sourcing that it falls somewhere within that range. "Perceived bias" carries a pretty strong connotation that it's a mere perception. I think that the current title is best. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Liberal bias

This is going nowhere. O3000, Ret. (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
--- Wikipedia editors overwhelmingly are leftist and that bias shows quite clearly. Look at the article for Robert Hur. They put his political donation history in his personal life section. Did they do that on Jack Smith's personal info? --------------- How is this white washed? It is supported by Harvard studies that wikipedia overall has a left bias. The allowed news sources a lot of them are very left wing like vox, slate. Yet there is nothing to balance this. Its shameful really. A paper from harvard researchers found left wint editors are more active and partisan here. These are facts. 98.217.161.235 (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC) Care to link to this paper, as to the treat, we also use a lot of right-wing sources (such as the Times and the Telegraph). Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC) Yes, there have been studies/prominent figures describing a left-wing bias on Wikipedia. Whether these are true or not, the mention of "white-washing" is likely due to the fact that most editors are White, and tend to write more about White people than any other race. See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC) I have had the issue of being banned by “trusted” editors for extremely minor infractions without warning. This appears like it could be intentional to stop others from achieving higher level edit status. This also makes the part where “anyone can edit” moot as they are often reverted with the claim that it’s not a RS when the same source is used for other articles and wikis. If you want to look at clear example look how the Canada convoy wiki depicts civil disobedience with extreme over quoting of unverified media reports. They refuse to accept video as a RS even though it’s very clear what is being said https://x.com/derekkaior/status/1750124209110442129?s=46 and compare it to the gorge Floyd protest which where the most destructive protest in North America history that had a bunch of deaths, a much longer blockade and actual violence. 2605:8D80:664:58B3:4DD1:8C4A:8944:B63E (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC) To make it more obvious Aquillion immediately tried to revert my comment to hide it under the claim I’m a “blocked user” yet they themselves have violated the 3 revert rule within the last 5 days where I was banned for a formatting error 2605:8D80:664:58B3:4DD1:8C4A:8944:B63E (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This page is not a forum. Its sole purpose is to improve the article using reliable sources, and you are not doing that. Deleting your comment above was the correct thing to do, and it is your problem that you not understand that, not Wikipedia's or Aquillion's. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC) bringing up a problem isn't a forum tho Its a complaint about Wikipedia's bias 46.97.169.87 (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC) No, it's a complaint about a user, that is what ANI is for. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC) About the action an user in a position of influence on Wikipedia did Not about any regular sort of action but about action taken from a position of influence Fact that IS RELEVANT due to the nature of the topic discussed here He did not try to get justice but to add to the discussion related to the bias that Wikipedia has In this context the complaint holds relevance 46.97.169.87 (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Just a remark: "liberal" means "moderate right-wing". It does not mean "leftist". tgeorgescu (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Sir, this is a Wendy's. GMGtalk 13:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

description of criminality

Maybe I should write this text somewhere else, but I can not find out where. Sorry for that!

Most Wikipedia articles have a good accuracy, but some of them seem to be (more or less) biased. An example is the section about "criminality" in the article below

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Finnish_Kale

Some sentences in this article seem to be racist and not realistic. Even other articles seem to have similar problems.

Feel free to move what I write here to some better place! Regards! 130.238.112.129 (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Not every criticism of or every inconvenient statistic for a racial minority group amounts to racism. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Bias review

Is there a method to which pages can be reviewed for ideological bias? I feel If there was a forum to address these concerns then it could relieve a lot of debate on the subject 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:A13B:D3C6:5D5D:5078 (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a huge topic involving editing practices at the individual article, and various policies, guidelines and noticeboards. A good place to start learning might be to watch Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for a few weeks. But this talk page is limited to discussing improving this particular article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The scope of noticeboards is too narrow to allow for the open and transparent discussions needed to resolve the problem and/or perception of there being a problem. An open publicly accessible forum for discussing Wikipedia has been needed for a very long time. Washusama (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you know of a venue that can be used for this? Failing that, many Wikipedians have blogs: — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The "neutrality" policy of Wiipedia all but guarantees that articles will have an ideological bias. That's because articles will give greater space to information and views that are most strongly supported in reliable sources. So for example, articles about evolution will provide more space to material supporting the theory than to those opposing it. TFD (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That is not an ideological bias because science is not an ideology. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Science as narrowly defined by the scientific method: hypothesis, observations, results – you are correct is not an ideology

Science as commonly thought of today i.e a materialistic worldview where understanding is dominated by “consensus” which helps us determine metaphysical reality, right & wrong & influence politics: this is very much an ideology Tonymetz 💬 03:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No it's not, and this is not a forum. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

which one? Tonymetz 💬 15:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to materialism, but the elephant in the room is that Wikipedia leans towards materialism. That needs to be in the article, it's a glaring omission. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

If you have good sources for it. I expect that only sources in favor of specific immaterial things - those in favor of specific religions and there fore biased against materialism as well as against other non-materialisms - will mention it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Christians + Muslims + Hindus are billions. Now, I am not saying they are right, nor am I saying they are wrong. Just that they are entitled to criticize Wikipedia. As Larry Sanger said in an YouTube interview, the religious POV of Wikipedia is that of mainline Protestantism and liberal Catholicism. Generally, I don't think that he is right about Wikipedia, but he is right about Wikipedia having such POV. And he is right that Wikipedia renders the view of the establishment—just that I think that's a feature, not a bug. So, yes, in both instances he is right about the POV, but he is wrong that that would be erroneous or mistaken. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Christians + Muslims + Hindus are billions." I tend to think about the spread of religion, as the spread of a disease. It keeps infecting more victims, and makes life worse for the world population. It does not give the infected any insight to the truth, or any particular reliability. Dimadick (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Reinforcing what Hob Gadlin said, that was a bad example. In this context, bias is bias against widely held credible opinions views. In the article, it is against fringe views which conflict with reality. North8000 (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I am using the term bias to mean "a tendency to prefer one person or thing to another." (Collins Dictionary) In this case, the bias is to give weight reflecting relative acceptance in reliable sources.

Ideological bias shapes peoples' attitudes toward scientific information, and that becomes progressively so as one progresses from natural to social sciences.

The reason articles on evolution pay little attention to creationism is entirely based on the degree of its acceptance in reliable sources. Wikipedia editors do not evaluate generally accepted beliefs, they just report them. If people in the ancient or medieval worlds had prepared an encyclopedia using Wikipedia's policies, it would have read very differently. TFD (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I'm with you in spirit. I just think that choosing an example that involves true and false on objective matters of fact and saying that the choice is just from tallying up opinions of wp:RS's / wp:"R"S's might contribute to the problem. One can assert that the latter method is the cause of bias and scrutinizing of that by sources could be a valid part of the content of this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and we are exercising it, consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strong bias in favor of accuracy. How do we change this so that we can reduce accuracy to result in a better read for those whose biases only make sense given inaccuracy? O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

We are not saying this bias is bad. But we have to call it for what it is, namely a bias. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Which is why we have an article on it, but this is about a more general idea of bias policing. Which is not something we should even be discussing on this talk page, as this is not about improving this article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Israel Bias on Wikipedia

WP:ECR ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since October 7, Wikipedia has been accused of having an anti-Israel bias. This is supported by a publication and article on same. Since this Wikipedia entry relates to Ideological bias on Wikipedia, there is no reason why this fact should not be included. It is not cherry picked. It is well supported and it directly relates to the topic at hand. Apndrew (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Not sure the World Jewish Congress is a good source for this as characterizations of bias should come from unbiased sources. In any case, there will be suggestions and actions of bias from both sides.[1][2]. That happens when you are unbiased. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC) "Not sure the World Jewish Congress is a good source for this" The World Jewish Congress is a Zionist organization. Wikipedia:Reliable sources sets a requirement for sources to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Since when do Zionist organizations have anything resembling a reputation for fact-checking? They produce their own propaganda. Dimadick (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC) References

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):Under a heading labeled "Anti-Israel Bias", the following section should be added: "Since October 7, Wikipedia has been accused of having an anti-Israel bias."

• Why it should be changed: The evidence of anti-Israeli bias is well documented in a published report. There is also already a section on this Article regarding alleged accusations of pro-Israel content on Wikipedia. In order to be neutral, and show both viewpoints, the above section should be added or the alleged pro-Israel accusations (see CAMERA campaign) must be deleted.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):"

Apndrew (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You have four sources which all point to the same poor source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Also looks like another WP:ECR violation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

"Has been accused of" is unacceptable wording per WEASEL, You need to explain who is making the accusations. It's like saying the U.S. has been accused of faking the moon landing. Editors want to know who these accusers are and how accepted their views are. TFD (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok. The language should then state: "Wikipedia has been accused by the World Jewish Congress of having an anti-Israel bias, especially since the October 7 attacks." Apndrew (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Arabic Wikipedia Bias

added section about the Arabic Wikipedia Bias, I would be happy if someone with authorization can check my addition, improve it if needed, and fortunately, add it back to the article.

Apparently I can't d so because I don't have enough edits.

Ty very much. 46.121.25.218 (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)