Monday, June 25, 2018

Wikipedia is deliberately politically biased

I have commented several times in previous blog posts how incredibly biased Wikipedia is with respect to politics. And the bias is pretty much unanimously to the extremist authoritarian regressive left.

This bias can be seen in almost any article that's highly politically charged, dealing with a current political subject. Most articles of high-profile critics of extremist leftist politics will be nothing more than character assassination propaganda. These articles often go to great lengths to list all the possible "transgressions" of the person in question, no matter how unproven, exaggerated or out-of-context those claims may be. The same is true for any group of people, or movement, that the regressive left considers an "enemy".

At the same time, public personalities and celebrities who are not the target of the regressive left, will have significantly more neutral articles about them. Even when the person in question has done something genuinely reproachable, it will usually be mentioned only in passing. You can often see the difference in the amount of text dedicated to describe all these transgressions (or alleged transgressions): With people who the regressive left has no problems with, the amount of text dedicated to their transgressions will be moderate and quite dry. With any persona non grata the amount of text dedicated to even very minor transgressions, or completely unproven claims of transgressions, will often be extraordinarily large. For example, quite often entire very long paragraphs will be dedicated to one single such transgression (when in the case of the former kind of people it might only be mentioned in passing in one sentence, if at all.)

Also, when the person him or herself has denied the accusations, or there are sources denying the accusations, the Wikipedia bias will still often be enacted: In the case of a persona non grata, such denials might be mentioned, but immediately followed copious refutations. (In the case of people that the regressive left wants to defend, the narrative will often be the other way around.)

Trying to remove this bias from Wikipedia is pretty much a futile task. Wikipedia has no central authority. There is no independent neutral governing body that would ensure neutrality, and veto biased edits. Instead, Wikipedia is mob-controlled. Whichever mob has the largest numbers pretty much controls the narrative. Any attempt by an individual to remove bias from an article will be very quickly reverted (often within minutes).

The funny, and obnoxious, thing is: These biased editors don't care, and are quite openly biased. They don't even try to hide it much.

They hide behind a perfect excuse: The amount of "reliable" sources for all those claims.

The requirement for reliable sources is, in principle, a good thing for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia shouldn't be making unsourced, unprovable claims, and all claims and facts should be based on reliable sources.

Yet, this is a double-edged sword: What happens when those sources are themselves biased, and pushing a political narrative? What happens when those sources are just propaganda?

And that's where the perfect excuse stems from: By far and large the current mainstream media is heavily biased to the extreme left, and has no qualms in pushing forward an extremist leftist narrative, even if it means distorting the facts, or just copying factoids without any sort of fact-checking. As long as a claim supports their political narrative, it will be published.

Very frequently the mainstream media will simply copy stories and claims from each other, without any sort of fact-checking, or trying to find where the story or claim originates from, and how reliable that original source is. And, quite often, there indeed is only one singular source for such claims, and that original source may be far from reliable. However, dozens of "reputable" news outlets repeating those factoids gives faux credibility to the claims.

And that's what the biased Wikipedia editors abuse to the maximum: They will reference dozens and dozens of "reliable sources" from the mainstream media, with complete disregard to how biased those sources might be, or what the original singular source for the claim might be.

They don't care. They openly and deliberately don't care, and aren't even afraid of saying so. They only care about the amount of sources. They will sometimes literally flood these Wikipedia articles with references to sources, just to give credibility to the claims being made. They don't care if all of those sources are simply copying each other, and are just parroting the same claim.

There's a high amount of political bias in Wikipedia, and this bias is open and deliberate, and all these biased editors are completely unashamed about it. They just hide behind a "my sources are bigger than yours" excuse. Their answer to any attempt of removing bias from an article is that. "Sources or gtfo." If the mainstream media is on their side, they claim victory, and revert any edits removing bias from the article. And if you keep editing enough times, they will just ban you.

And thus, Wikipedia is full of obnoxiously biased articles, dubious unproven claims being presented as facts, undue weight given to such claims, pure political propaganda, and character assassinations. And there's nothing that can be done about it.


  1. have you seen this article? it is about justifying
    a restaurant's asking sarah sanders to leave because of her role in Trump's administration.

    1. I love the expression "Donald Trump's immoral family separations at the border", as if it had been Trump himself who ordered families to be separated, when he has done no such thing.

  2. there is a real distortion in the second paragraph which says "arah Huckabee Sanders, she was politely asked to leave a Lexington, Virginia, restaurant by its owner because of her work defending Trump" it says she was politely asked to leave but in the original tweet by sarah sanders she says she was asked to leave and she left politely. that is a real example of distorting twisting the facts by leftist media!

  3. So do you have proof? You say there is and why but...
    Here is a really biased wiki:

    1. In order to counter my claim that Wikipedia is politically biased, you give a link showing that some other wiki is politically biased. As if that refuted anything of what I said.