Wikipedia Co-Founder: Site’s Neutrality Is ‘Dead’ Thanks to Leftist Bias

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

I have noticed it over the last year or two.

Wikipedia is like everything else, pushes certain narratives, agendas, etc.

It is all done behind the curtain, whilst the site is still trumpeted as a all go to for truth and answers...poppycock

Wikipedia Co-Founder: Site’s Neutrality Is ‘Dead’ Thanks to Leftist Bias

Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, published a blog post this month declaring that the online encyclopedia’s “neutral point of view” policy is “dead” due to the rampant left-wing bias of the site. Noting the article on President Donald Trump, Sanger contrasted its extensive coverage of presidential scandals with the largely scandal-free article on former President Barack Obama.

Sanger also criticized Wikipedia’s coverage of religion and other controversial topics. After Fox News reported on his blog post, many Wikipedians ignored the bias Sanger identified and instead responded by attacking the conservative outlet as well as Sanger.

On May 14, Sanger published a blog piece titled “Wikipedia Is Badly Biased” and started by declaring Wikipedia’s “Neutral Point of View” policy dead. Having founded the online encyclopedia with Jimmy Wales and having been involved in the original drafting of the policy, Sanger offered particular insight into its development and its practice in recent years. On the current policy’s rejection of providing “equal validity” to different views, Sanger stated this went directly against the original policy’s intent and that “as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science.”

Providing examples, Sanger noted former President Obama’s article excludes most notable scandals during his Administration, such as the bungled ATF Fast and Furious operation that armed Mexican cartels who killed a U.S. border agent or the targeting of Tea Party groups by the IRS. By contrast, Sanger pointed to Trump’s article containing overwhelmingly negative sections on the President regarding his “public profile” as well as investigations and impeachment. The sections critical of Trump and his presidency are nearly as long as those dealing with his presidency overall. He further criticized Wikipedia repeatedly saying Trump makes false statements rather than attributing such characterizations to sources.

So to the few who still think Wikipedia is such a great website, I urge extreme caution.... and lots of critical thinking.

It may not have "modified" much on for example the life and downfall of Napoleon; but more current relevant issues, one needs to take heed.

Pravdaseeker

Wikipedia is a free information resource that anyone can edit.

What fact-based edits have you added that have been removed, ignored or changed?

originally posted by: pravdaseeker
So to the few who still think Wikipedia is such a great website, I urge extreme caution.... and lots of critical thinking.

When using Wikipedia you should always check the footnotes and the source material.

I don’t believe they mention the pallet of cash payed to terrorists on Berrys page.

a reply to: TXRabbit

ITT: disgruntled ex employee of Wikipedia trash talks competition, ATS eats it up like poutine

Wiki vs Breitbart, FIGHT!

originally posted by: TXRabbit
Wikipedia is a free information resource that anyone can edit.

What fact-based edits have you added that have been removed, ignored or changed?

That's the thing: anyone can edit. As we have seen here, opinion rapidly becomes fact and fact fiction because everything is relative and subjective in a world without objective truth or fact.

a reply to: ketsuko

Anyone can edit it but that doesn't mean the edits will remain. We did something like this once for a thread and the phony edits were removed within a day.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: TXRabbit
Wikipedia is a free information resource that anyone can edit.

What fact-based edits have you added that have been removed, ignored or changed?

That's the thing: anyone can edit. As we have seen here, opinion rapidly becomes fact and fact fiction because everything is relative and subjective in a world without objective truth or fact.

That's why the bibliography is for. You know, the extensive list of credible sources at the bottom of each article referencing a catalogue of published data.

a reply to: pravdaseeker

Wikipedia's sort of useless unless you're using it to look up things with easily verifiable cited facts. Anything that's likely to be biased or opinionated will probably have a biased and opinionated article.

But that's not really even the point of encyclopedias. If you're looking for info on current political topics, an encyclopedia has never been the place to go for that information.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I think it would be more correct to write: "The list of sources at the bottom of each article referencing published materials that may or may not be true."

a reply to: pravdaseeker

So to the few who still think Wikipedia is such a great website, I urge extreme caution.... and lots of critical thinking.

Sanger has been saying this stuff for years , he's also started rival sites over the years to take on Wikipedia but none have caught the Net's attention.
From 2014.

To rid the public of this type of problem, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger made Infobitt, a free, open content news resource he’s calling “Wikipedia for the news.” No, it’s not Wikinews; this site grabs facts from news sources, summarizes them and organizes the information to make it a news go-to. Like our beloved online encyclopedia, Infobitt is a collaborative effort.
observer.com...

Larry Sanger's Breitbart articles.
www.breitbart.com...#

Critical thinking is a good thing , but it cuts both ways.

a reply to: pteridine

Go ahead and demonstrate the factual inaccuracy of provided sources then. Being skeptical is not enough to dismiss credible publications.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: pravdaseeker

So to the few who still think Wikipedia is such a great website, I urge extreme caution.... and lots of critical thinking.

Sanger has been saying this stuff for years , he's also started rival sites over the years to take on Wikipedia but none have caught the Net's attention.
From 2014.

To rid the public of this type of problem, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger made Infobitt, a free, open content news resource he’s calling “Wikipedia for the news.” No, it’s not Wikinews; this site grabs facts from news sources, summarizes them and organizes the information to make it a news go-to. Like our beloved online encyclopedia, Infobitt is a collaborative effort.
observer.com...

Larry Sanger's Breitbart articles.
www.breitbart.com...#

Critical thinking is a good thing , but it cuts both ways.

Because Infobitt is impervious to the same unethical influences that allegedly plague Wikipedia, right?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: ketsuko

Anyone can edit it but that doesn't mean the edits will remain. We did something like this once for a thread and the phony edits were removed within a day.

and everyone who looked at that Wiki page for proof went back and verified all the facts remained several days later, as all here at ATS do diligently. I mean, who doesn't do that?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Because Infobitt is impervious to the same unethical influences that allegedly plague Wikipedia, right?

What makes you think I'm defending Larry Sanger or his failed sites ?

a reply to: gortex

That's a great question, why are you being defensive over a simple observation unrelated to your personal opinions?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: pravdaseeker
So to the few who still think Wikipedia is such a great website, I urge extreme caution.... and lots of critical thinking.

When using Wikipedia you should always check the footnotes and the source material.

Part of that problem is the huge liberal bias in what are supposed to be 'reliable' sources. I can't tell you how many times I saw 'reliable' sources make the claim Trump called white supremacists fine people by cutting his quote in half and removing the part of the quote where he explicitly stated he was not referring to white supremacists.

Wikipedia turned me into a newt.
I got better.

a reply to: pravdaseeker

What is even less remarked upon is that every country's Wikipedia has differing standards regarding edits.

The English language Wikipedia is, among, the various language-Wikipedias, the most heavily targeted to push various agendas -- be they political, religious, commercial, etc. The biases mentioned are nothing new, but may be more blatant today.

There have been scandals aplenty in which protected members were allowed to violate community standards regarding edits or behavior to editors. "Anyone" can edit it as long as they don't step on the wrong toes -- something that is very possible to do with no malice aforethought.

The information on the site is hit-and-miss. Sometimes it is accurate and well documented, and other times it is not.

Cheers