Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ideological bias on Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Wikipedia C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative Views C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Logic C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 May 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship was copied or moved into Ideological bias on Wikipedia with this edit on 05:08, 22 May 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Reliability of Wikipedia#Liberal bias was copied or moved into Ideological bias on Wikipedia with this edit on 05:08, 22 May 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

I am confused.

I edited the following sentence: "Conservapedia has itself received negative reactions from figures, journalists, and scientists for its bias and factual inaccuracies" -None, repeat none, of the sources used to back up this statement were from figures or scientists. in fact all of the sources were from left wing news outlets. "Its bias and factual inaccuracies" comes across as Wikipedia directly attacking this Conservapedia too, in contravention of Wikipedia's supposed neutral stance.

I changed the sentence to "Conservapedia has itself received negative reactions from some left wing media for its perceived bias and factual inaccuracies"

I know that the talk pages are basically to give the illusion that Wikipedia is a democratic, social project when it is tightly controlled by a few editors with approved views is but I do think that User:Soibangla should at least justify why the edit was reverted and/or why they did not look at the edit and provide their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.12.34 (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources, such as news media, can summarize what primary sources, such as scientific papers, say. Also note that what you call "left wing news outlets" is the mainstream pro-capitalist media owned by major corporations, not Marxist publications. Left and right is not a matter of the difference between pro-capitalist media and foaming at the mouth pro-capitalist media. TFD (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not entirely sure I understand what part of this has anything to do with Marxism or capitalism... GMG^talk 09:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

negative reactions from figures, journalists, and scientists I am not quite sure what "figures" is supposed to mean in the context. In older versions, it was "political figures", which makes more sense. User:Madzroxx deleted the word in 2019 and became inactive shortly afterwards: [1] --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• GreenMeansGo, the IP claims that "all of the sources were from left wing news outlets." TFD (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Still not entirely sure I understand what part of this has anything to do with Marxism or capitalism... GMG^talk 00:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Left-wing=Marxist. TFD (talk)

  No, it doesn't. The left, even the far left, includes a wide range of ideologies that aren't included in Marxism, and many of which are explicitly opposed to, and historical enemies of Marxism. Maybe a good place to start is the anarchist writings of Marx's mortal enemy Bakunin, and something about Marx being the proponent of the "parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people". (Though to be fair, Marx was also fairly anti-Semitic, despite being ethnically Jewish.) GMG^talk 12:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So for Marxist, read Marxist or revolutionary anarchist, so we include Bakunin. (I don't think that the IP sees much distinction between them though.) TFD (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid that unfortunately no, no one within striking distance of having a clue what they're talking about includes Bakunin as a Marxist. They were very much not the best of friends.

  As to the IPs innermost thoughts, I'm afraid I've had very limited success in my forays into mind reading. It may be somewhat more straightforward to read the cited sources and point out who exactly these scientists are that we're referencing, because I'm afraid I don't see them either. So it would seem the onus is on those reverting the IP to go find themselves a source that supports the content. In my experience, it tends to be more productive to assume good faith, and address the actual issue being raised, rather than opine on the existential nature of pro-capitalist media. GMG^talk 10:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As a purported psychic wackjob routinely picking up bad vibes emanating from the nature of pro-capitalist media, I agree, the most deeply troubling dearth here is that of the supposed scientists (followed closely by the void of unseen figures). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm still trying to figure out who these scientists are. I dunno. Maybe @Soibangla: @Gene93k: or @GorillaWarfare: can enlighten us as to their identities, given that they seem to have all been fairly confident in their reverts. GMG^talk 13:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought this lesson would be quicker. Shows what I can tell of the future! Maybe some things aren't meant to be known. In any case, best of luck, I'm off to discover the other thing. At least I can rest reasonably assured that those strange figures were indeed once political figures... InedibleHulk (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm...uh...still kindof waiting for literally anyone who reverted to make an appearance on the talk page... GMG^talk 23:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I left a message on the talk page @GorillaWarfare:. Her response was simply to state "I did explain" (after she banned me for 24 hours). I just responded then to state that there is literally no record of her explanation anywhere. What is most troubling to me is the apparent unchecked authority to revert and ban without any justification, explanation or response whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.12.34 (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert, but I would have if I'd gotten here sooner. Your point about the sources not mentioning scientists is a good one, and I am confident that you have improved this article by calling attention to that issue. Sadly, you did not make that point right away. Your first series of edits removed "figures, journalists, and scientists", introduced "perceived" to cast doubt on the fact that Conservapedia is biased and inaccurate, and replaced the removed language with "some left wing media" (apparently referring to the Guardian, NYT, Wired, the Toronto Star, and Ars Technica). I would absolutely have reverted, though I probably would have provided an edit summary along the lines of "blatant POV-pushing". We generally don't revert without explanation except in cases of vandalism, and I wouldn't fault Soibangla seeing your edit as such.

You were reverted. It sucks. The best move is to then bring your case to the talk page. Which you did! But then, instead of waiting for consensus to build, you restored your edit minutes later before anyone had responded. You still had not made the point that other editors are responding positively to. You didn't share that you noticed no scientists in the sources, and you were still expressing your views in anti-left-wing-media terms. I would have reverted, as Gene93k did, and I shared TFD's belief that you simply didn't get that we can use reliable sources to verify the opinions of scientists.

After your revert, other editors joined in at the talk page. Still no conversation about the lack of scientists in the sources. That didn't happen until you made one comment about it and then immediately reverted again. At this point, you were edit warring. When you were reverted by GW a few minutes later, she posted an edit warring warning on your page. I find that to be a fair explanation of the reason for the revert. You were surely already aware about edit warring, since you were warned about it just two days prior. At this point, you were in the right about one thing from a content perspective. Wikipedia shouldn't say scientists criticized the bias and accuracy of Conservapedia without citing a reliable source. But being right is not an excuse for edit warring, which you continued to do. The revert that got you blocked occurred half an hour after you mentioned the "no scientists" point. You had built no consensus at that point.

In sum, you edit warred. There's your explanation. Other editors, who are now supporting you, are responding to your one good point in a sea of misconduct and POV-pushing. I join them in supporting that one point; as far as I can tell, "scientists" is unsupported by the given content. Can you continue to focus on great points like that, and drop the POV? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, I am not a conservative (nor a liberal), nor do I read or engage with Conservapedia. I retain that my initial edit was justified. The use of the term "bias and factual inaccuracies" is a loaded one, and should be used with care in a supposed neutral environment. There is no detailed explanation in the article itself of specific bias or factual inaccuracies and so the term was used accurately to describe the views held in the op-ed pieces used as references. The use of the phrase "some left wing media" is more debatable, but I argue still justified. The NYT, Guardian and the Toronto Star all have references to either left wing or liberal in their own Wikipedia article. Further, the use of the qualifier "some" was used to improve the neutrality of the overall statement. To suggest this is "POV" pushing is, quite frankly, offensive and unfair. I also note that I made the invitation to provide an edit rather than a simple reversion. A reversion without justification causes edit wars to happen. Your own statement "You didn't share that you noticed no scientists in the sources, and you were still expressing your views in anti-left-wing-media terms" is both inaccurate and troubling; one, because I did raise the fact there were no scientists in the article and two, because the phrase "anti-left-wing-media as a perjoritive in this case indicates a lack of neutrality on your behalf. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.12.34 (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I am happy to engage in good-faith efforts to improve this article with you, but it's bizarre and worrisome to contend with your currently stated view. Am I understanding this correctly?

  • You believe "bias and factual inaccuracies" is POV, despite being sourced and (I hope we can agree on this) objectively true
  • You believe "some left wing media" is NPOV, despite being unsourced

  Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I am also happy to engage in good faith efforts to improve articles, and even to register with Wikipedia to do so, but to me it is concerning that you are taking a positional approach to editing an article. That, to me, is quite disturbing. It appears that you do not understand context here: the context of "bias and factual inaccuracies" is highly aggressive as it is stated without any specific context. Meanwhile "some left wing media" is simply providing a neutral, consistent statement: the word "some" is a a qualifier which is deliberately there is neutralise claims of bias, while the references to "left-wing" are entirely self referential: Wikipedia refers to them as such. I think that it is troubling, from a centrist perspective, that "right-wing" and "alt-right" can be bandied around with abandon but that any mention of "left-wing" is treated defensively. As someone who prefers to look at all partial views objectively, this is deeply troubling in Wikipedia's supposed neutral workspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.12.34 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  First, you need to learn how to WP:SIGN your contributions. Second, you need to learn that statements in Wikipedia articles need to be sourced. We can't just add "left-wing" or "right-wing" because we think something is left-wing or right-wing. And we cannot just delete a well-sourced statement because we think it is false. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently I missed the ping, sorry about that GMG. I came across the apparent edit war while Huggling and blocked 202.* after they breached 3RR after a warning. I have not evaluated the sourcing. That appears to already be underway, but let me know if I can be of more help. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm just kindof an old fashioned fellow, and still cling to this pesky notion that it's kindof strange that three different users decided the revert button was easier than the talk page. Maybe some level of frustration is understandable when someone is technically correct (the best kind of correct) and the only person who can be bothered to discuss the issue wants to write a treatise on capitalism.

Dear everyone that I've already pinged, Huggle isn't a substitute for dialogue, and while anon might be a particularly intelligent dog, it's probably more likely that they are a person. GMG^talk 12:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-There literally is not one scientist mentioned in any of the articles, one of which is a reprint and the others are op-eds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.12.34 (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an FYI to all of the above: At one time - back in 8 July 2018, the sentence in question read as follows:

Conservapedia has itself received negative reactions from political figures, journalists, and scientists for its bias and factual inaccuracies.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]}

So, at one time, in those eleven references, scientists were indeed cited as giving negative reactions. That's all. Shearonink (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, some of those sources are genuine references to established science bodies and scientists in a specific context (evolution) which could be raised. Not sure why they were then deleted and the opinion pieces retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.12.34 (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great find! I restored that version of the sentence and sources. I would appreciate other editors taking a look with a view toward removing some of the sources as there are too many. We may want to add some to the Conservapedia article itself. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This still needs to be greatly trimmed. I get that people really want to dig in their heels with the references^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10[11][12][13][14]} but this is probably a bit excessive, bordering on WP:POINTY. GMG^talk 12:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, three max. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEBUNDLE? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, though when I reviewed the sources, a lot of them were just essentially interviews with the founder and his mom, and not really necessary by any measure. Doesn't really add much and it's not clear why they were included in the first place. GMG^talk 21:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Screw the bundle. Readers will just need to click an extra time to not know where to look. All you need to cite is a political figure's statement, a journalist's lament and a scientist's cold hard opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanger, Co-Founder of Wikipedia notes that there is a significant bias. He should know. He helped found the organization and has published repeatedly on the subject:

https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/  

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Semicircle2012 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He also believes in some conspiracy theories and nonsense from unreliable sources, so he would obviously disagree with Wikipedia. So that makes him an unreliable source whose opinions are not worth much. -- Valjean (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He has also expressed some fascinating views on Twitter, and in his essay about Wikipedia, that some might find are not fully aligned with reality, such as flatly stating as fact that Obama spied on Trump when there remains no evidence of it after years of wild speculation that went nowhere. He has not been a particularly notable figure since leaving WP soon after its launch. His POV has often been discussed here and the consensus remains it should be excluded. soibangla (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well no he should not, as he may be biased (after all he has set up his own rival, twice).Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He also said that Wikipedia is pro-Socialism or something to that extent, which I find hardly believable. Ask the leaders of Venezuela and they will say Wikipedia is right-wing. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be frank here. Conservapedia is complete and total bullshit and should not be referenced in this article at all. We should not bend over backwards to be "fair" by including such utterly worthless trash. There, I said it. soibangla (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, its not an RS, its a wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]