Jump to content

User:JD April/Addressing Wikipedia's Political Bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is frequently relied upon as an authoritative source, often cited more than traditional references like Encyclopedia Britannica. This widespread usage amplifies the impact of any biases it may contain, making its influence more concerning than it might otherwise be.

Introduction

[edit]

Over the years, I’ve observed a systemic bias in Wikipedia’s political coverage, particularly in how certain mainstream, corporate sources are used and how independent or alternative perspectives are marginalized. At times, it appears that critical viewpoints -- especially those challenging established political narratives -- are excluded or downplayed. My experience has been that certain types of information, often from independent journalism, get reverted more frequently than material from conventional news outlets aligned with prominent U.S. political figures or parties.

I acknowledge that these are my current impressions, and that robust, policy-based evidence is needed to substantiate them. To that end, I am in the process of gathering examples and reviewing relevant policies. My aim is to explore whether Wikipedia’s editorial practices and sourcing norms might limit the breadth of political discourse. If I find that these observations hold up, I hope to suggest constructive improvements in line with Wikipedia’s core principles: neutrality, verifiability, and a balanced representation of reliable sources.

This is a work in progress, and I welcome civil discussion and policy-based feedback as I refine these points and develop a clearer understanding of how best to address potential gaps or biases.

First Impressions

[edit]

As a left-wing independent, I've repeatedly noticed that Wikipedia has a very strong political bias. Political topics read like they were exclusively sourced by front-page New York Times articles and heavily-advertised stories by similar organizations that endorse the Democratic Party and are uncritical of government when Democrats are in power. That is, government criticism that is covered has glaring partisan omissions.

I aim to help balance this systemic bias by being more skeptical of these types of (largely mainstream and corporate) sources and their narratives and rhetoric by relying more on independent journalism. That this page doesn't exist after 23 years -- not even as a redirect or disambiguation -- is already evidence of pervasive political bias.

See independent media and alternative media in the meantime. See also far-left, fringe, tankie, and useful idiot, since many independent journalists and thinkers are marginalized and discredited by associating them with these terms (or with Trump or Putin) as a sort of punishment for speaking from outside the Overton window.

This amounts to gatekeeping and censorship as forms of social influence. The result is misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda that perpetuates conformity and perceptions of out-group homogeneity. Wikipedia, and any organization for that matter, should have far superior standards than this.

(Note: The political bias on Wikipedia is a microcosm. What I'm describing here is a larger societal issue, particularly the liberal bias within academia. And it seems that many of the more elevated editors here are academics and scholars. But given the website's popularity, what may have started as an effect is now also a cause.)

I hope that my political edits make a difference. But I expect that they'll be reverted. So I plan to document this extensively, figuring out what information is being censored and by whom. The power structures that shape the status quo outside of Wikipedia persist within it, wittingly or not.

Resources given to me in response to this

[edit]
  • Wikipedia:Tendentious editing
    • Ironically, this was given to me due to a worry that I might be a tendentious editor. But it actually describes the very problem I'm seeing across many political topics that I hope to lend balance to.

Evidence of Wikipedia's Political Bias

[edit]

To do next: Find allies and existing documentation of ideological bias on Wikipedia.

To add: Wikipedia's Russophobia, Sinophobia, and Western exceptionalism.

Wikipedia's Resources

[edit]

External Sources

[edit]

Examples of Politically Biased Wikipedia Pages

[edit]

Wikipedia's Abuses of Power

[edit]

Why isn't there a page or section documenting abuses of power on Wikipedia? Every other organization gets this treatment. Wikipedia interestingly omits itself from such scrutiny.

For starters:

  • Betacommand [1]
  • Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing scandal
  • Jytdog [2]
  • Numerous accusations of editors connected to PR firms and political organizations
  • ArbCom misconduct
    • Gamergate: ArbCom treated users differently depending on which side of the conflict they were on, despite violating the same rules. They banned users they disagreed with who otherwise had long histories of constructive editing. ArbCom failed to protect users from harassment. ArbCom's rulings were unclear and left many confused. The outcome is damage to Wikipedia's trust and reputation as well as adding to a chilling effect for those who might otherwise constructively contribute to contentious topics.
  • Numerous reports of long-time editors bullying new users and removing their content without explanation
  • POV-pushing on contentious topics

I'm specifically looking for examples of abuses of power related to Wikipedia's political bias. To that end:

  • Gamergate preferential treatment: ArbCom was more lenient with one group of users despite them violating the same rules.
  • Israel-Palestine articles
    • CAMERA
    • Note that Facebook and Twitter censored pro-Palestinian voices.
  • BLM criticism removed
    • Was any of the criticism legitimate?
  • Wasn't there something about pharmaceutical companies removing criticism from their pages?
  • Selective application of verifiability and neutrality policies to put conservative politicians in a more negative light than liberal politicians
  • Admin bias: selective rule enforcement which permits a degree of plausible deniability
  • Community demographics: Wikipedians skewing younger, liberal, and Western effectively forms a clique. (Reddit suffers this same problem.)
  • Paid editing and external lobbying efforts
    • Cite examples

Wikipedia's Political Bias Outside Wikipedia

[edit]

People actually believe that every editor is equal at Wikipedia: [3]

Due to partisan framing (particularly out-group homogeneity), anyone challenging this view is immediately labeled a "right wing loon," even though it's absolutely true that Wikipedia has an editorial hierarchy. Make no mistake that this is a dominance hierarchy, despite Wikipedia's collaborative ethos. See the above subsection on abuses of power.

This observation is part of the larger problem of ideological bias permeating Wikipedia from without. Incidentally, the view supports the misconception that Wikipedia doesn't have ideological bias from within. This is also part of the "Reality has a liberal bias" mentality.

Solutions and Recommendations

[edit]

To do: Review what's already in place to address Wikipedia's political bias.

Policy Reforms

Community Diversity

Oversight

  • Review how this works and cases of bias or abuse.

Editor Education

  • Wikipedia's subtitle ("the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit") leads to inaccurate ideas of egalitarianism. I'd argue that it's flat out false. Not anyone can edit it. Accounts and IP addresses are explicitly banned.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:JD_April/Addressing_Wikipedia%27s_Political_Bias&oldid=1267125074"