As may have become clear from past blog posts about the subject, I have been trying to campaign against political bias in Wikipedia, which is absolutely rampant there. I have semi-regularly made suggestions in the talk pages of politically charged articles about changes to make it more neutral. Most of them have been quickly dismissed and even locked. In one instance it actually led to an actual change to more neutral tone (in the article for Donald Trump, no less).
Many years ago I started a discussion in the proper Wikipedia policy discussion page about the political bias there and how it could be avoided. Recently I tried again. Apparently this ruffled some feathers because the discussion was locked within minutes and one (anonymous, unaccountable) administrator decided to block me indefinitely from making any edits, and moreover removed my user page, where I discussed more in depth about the political bias problem in Wikipedia. No clear reason was ever given why my user page had to be removed.
Note that such expressions of opinion on Wikipedia policies in user pages are explicitly allowed by the Wikipedia rules. I quote:
This is an exact copy of what I had written in said page. You be the judge of why it was removed.
== Fighting against political bias in Wikipedia ==
Wikipedia has no central authority, board of directors, or basically any public entity that could be held accountable for violations of Wikipedia's own rules, or its integrity as an alleged encyclopedic publication. Instead, it's controlled by a mob of anonymous users that has essentially put itself in charge, holds all the keys to all the locks, and is not accountable for any political bias or biased policies that it may introduce into Wikipedia. If the majority of this anonymous mob is highly politically biased towards one side of the political spectrum, then Wikipedia will likewise be so, and there's pretty much nothing that can be done about it. There is nobody to complain to, nobody who would veto biased edits, nobody who would hold biased editors accountable for their actions. Trying to achieve political neutrality in Wikipedia is essentially a lost battle.
== The litmus test for political bias in Wikipedia ==
There is an easy test to see how politically biased articles about politically charged subjects are, and which side of the political spectrum this bias is slanted towards: Just read the lead of the article (ie. the beginning part that appears before the table of contents), and the table of contents itself.
The more that the extreme left-wing side of the political spectrum opposes a person, group or movement, the more lead space will be dedicated to listing negative claims about them, and the more individual sections in the article (thus listed in the table of contents) will be dedicated to individual negative traits. The article itself will almost invariably contain copious amounts of minutiae listing the transgressions of that person, group or movement, no matter how minor or how irrelevant (and often based on mere allegations rather than corroborated facts). If the person is hated enough by the extreme left, even entire separate articles will be created to list these individual negative aspects. Any positive traits or actions by these people or entities will either not be mentioned at all, or mentioned only very briefly (and usually sandwiched between negative traits and criticism). These articles are not encyclopedic; they are smearing campaigns.
Any attempt at trying to remove this bias from these articles will be quickly reverted.
In contrast, when the person, group or movement is not opposed by the extreme left, the lead, the table of contents and the article itself will be much more neutral, stating only major facts and generally avoiding irrelevant minutia. If it's somebody or some entity that the extreme left favors, the lead (and article itself) will be full of exaltation. In this case, if there are any major negative traits, actions or controversies surrounding this person or entity, it will be dealt only briefly. Sometimes these controversies may not even be mentioned at all in the lead of the article (eg. Hillary Clinton), or if they are significant enough to get into the lead, they will be mentioned only very briefly and in passing, usually sandwiched between positive traits, actions and adulation (eg. Bill Clinton).
== Bias by proxy ==
Biased Wikipedia editors maintain the facade of neutrality by adding lots of source citations in their edits. This gives the illusion of the claim being well-sourced. The problem is that these sources are almost invariably highly politically biased themselves. Indeed, it's highly convenient for these editors that the vast majority of the mainstream media is also extremely biased towards the left side of the political spectrum, and is completely unashamed about using their journalistic medium to spout political propaganda. This gives a really convenient excuse for Wikipedia editors to use source citations in these articles, happily and deliberately ignoring how biased those sources are. This is what I like to call "bias by proxy".
This is not just me saying it. This is pretty much the official policy of Wikipedia. I have been told by administrators quite clearly and directly that the "neutrality" clause of Wikipedia rules only applies to editors themselves, it does not apply to the sources of the information. It's official Wikipedia policy that sources can be biased, and it doesn't matter, they can still be quoted.
Of course there's still quite direct bias among Wikipedia editors as well. This direct bias happens in the form of source selection: Naturally left-leaning sources will be preferred over more conservative sources, the latter of which will often be dismissed as "unreliable". At the same time, ridiculously and infamously biased left-leaning sources will happily be used (even against protests from some editors). The SPLC might be the quintessential example (a source that has been repeatedly questioned for its extreme political bias, yet time and again declared "reliable". Because of course it is. It's too much convenient of a source to drop.)
Another form of direct bias happens in how much irrelevant tiny minutia is introduced into an article for smearing the person or entity in question. Invariably, such minutia will not be introduced in article about people that the extreme left likes.
== Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but a resource for political activism ==
Many of the Wikipedia articles about people, groups or movements that the extreme left hates are nothing but endless lists of irrelevant minutia, systematically listing all kinds of minor negative claims and events. This goes blatantly against the Wikipedia policy on undue weight being put onto a subject, but obviously editors do not care.
The fact is that these articles are not encyclopedic. They are resources for political activism. They meticulously collect all possible tidbits that could be used as weapons by political activists, journalists and other such people. These articles are essentially no different from similar articles at Conservapedia (which mostly consist of endless lists of minutia and minor claims); the only difference may be that Wikipedia uses a nicer formatting.
Very conspicuously, and tellingly, such lists do not exist for people and entities that the extreme left does not hate (and especially not for ones that they like).
Perhaps the pinnacle, the ultimate example, of this is the Gamergate article. It's astonishingly long for such an irrelevant subject matter. Consider that, for example, as of writing this the word "threat" appears in the article 82 times, and the word "harassment" appears a whopping 121 times. There are more instances of these two words alone than many articles have words in total. This is absolutely excessive, blatantly breaks the policy on undue weight, and a quite clear indication of the purpose of that article: To act as a resource for political activism. It is not an encyclopedic article in any way, shape or form. It's just an endless list of minutia, meticulously collecting all forms of tidbits, for political activists to use as ammunition. Most of these tidbits are mere claims made by individual people, with no corroborating evidence.
== Discussion is stifled ==
If you try to object to this bias, if you try to discuss the obvious and blatant bias in any individual article, or Wikipedia in general, even if you do it through the proper channels in the proper pages for that kind of discussion, not surprisingly your objections will be dismissed and most often than not locked and often just quietly removed.
In one particular example I wrote an argument in the talk page of such a biased article about one particular claim made in the article that I considered to be completely inappropriate, out of place, and clearly and highly biased. One particular editor tried to claim that the talk page of the article is not the place to discuss such things, even though it most definitely is (since it was talking about one particular claim made in the article, and my proposal to remove it). I quoted the exact Wikipedia rule that stated so. Yet, this editor kept ignoring the very rule that stated that it was the exact page for such a discussion, and kept claiming that it's not, trying to make me stop. Moreover, he started to quietly remove my responses to other editors discussing the matter. I kept reverting his removals, stating vandalism as the cause for the reverting. To my knowledge this editor did not receive any sort of warning or sanction for these actions.
In many other instances any discussion about the political bias of an article will be quickly marked as locked, with some "this is not a forum" excuse tag, and sometimes just quietly removed from the talk page (I have had it happen several times). Trying to start a discussion about Wikipedia's overall policy on political bias, in the proper page for that (ie. the Wikipedia policies discussion page) will usually be locked within minutes, and no such conversation will be allowed to happen even though the subject in question is on-topic and in the proper place (again, I have had it happen.) There is no place in Wikipedia where this discussion can be held; it will be locked within minutes of starting it. This discussion is just not allowed.
Editors who try to remove bias from articles, or simply discuss this bias, will usually receive warnings and even sanctions. Such discussion is not allowed, and will quickly be stifled, locked and removed.
== Why this is important? ==
This is important because the world takes Wikipedia way too seriously. It's like TV: Everybody knows that you shouldn't trust what they claim on TV, yet time and again people fall for it and believe pretty much anything if it's said on TV. The same goes for Wikipedia: Everybody knows that it's an unreliable source, yet time and again people just believe it if Wikipedia claims it. It's a curious and odd quirk of the human psyche: We know we shouldn't trust it, yet we do.
And that's a big problem. Wikipedia is taken way too seriously, and used way too often as a reliable source of information, even though Wikipedia is pretty much a joke. Wikipedia editors shamelessly abuse the power and influence that Wikipedia has, for political activism and propaganda. Wikipedia is abused as a propaganda machine, to amplify and spread the propaganda spouted by left-leaning biased mainstream media. If Wikipedia were considered as much a joke as eg. Conservapedia is, then it wouldn't matter. However, that's not the case. Wikipedia is widely considered a reliable source, even though it most certainly is not.
And that's why this is important.
Many years ago I started a discussion in the proper Wikipedia policy discussion page about the political bias there and how it could be avoided. Recently I tried again. Apparently this ruffled some feathers because the discussion was locked within minutes and one (anonymous, unaccountable) administrator decided to block me indefinitely from making any edits, and moreover removed my user page, where I discussed more in depth about the political bias problem in Wikipedia. No clear reason was ever given why my user page had to be removed.
Note that such expressions of opinion on Wikipedia policies in user pages are explicitly allowed by the Wikipedia rules. I quote:
"Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project."Thus there was absolutely nothing against the rules of Wikipedia in me stating my opinions on Wikipedia policies in my talk page. It was still removed.
This is an exact copy of what I had written in said page. You be the judge of why it was removed.
== Fighting against political bias in Wikipedia ==
Wikipedia has no central authority, board of directors, or basically any public entity that could be held accountable for violations of Wikipedia's own rules, or its integrity as an alleged encyclopedic publication. Instead, it's controlled by a mob of anonymous users that has essentially put itself in charge, holds all the keys to all the locks, and is not accountable for any political bias or biased policies that it may introduce into Wikipedia. If the majority of this anonymous mob is highly politically biased towards one side of the political spectrum, then Wikipedia will likewise be so, and there's pretty much nothing that can be done about it. There is nobody to complain to, nobody who would veto biased edits, nobody who would hold biased editors accountable for their actions. Trying to achieve political neutrality in Wikipedia is essentially a lost battle.
== The litmus test for political bias in Wikipedia ==
There is an easy test to see how politically biased articles about politically charged subjects are, and which side of the political spectrum this bias is slanted towards: Just read the lead of the article (ie. the beginning part that appears before the table of contents), and the table of contents itself.
The more that the extreme left-wing side of the political spectrum opposes a person, group or movement, the more lead space will be dedicated to listing negative claims about them, and the more individual sections in the article (thus listed in the table of contents) will be dedicated to individual negative traits. The article itself will almost invariably contain copious amounts of minutiae listing the transgressions of that person, group or movement, no matter how minor or how irrelevant (and often based on mere allegations rather than corroborated facts). If the person is hated enough by the extreme left, even entire separate articles will be created to list these individual negative aspects. Any positive traits or actions by these people or entities will either not be mentioned at all, or mentioned only very briefly (and usually sandwiched between negative traits and criticism). These articles are not encyclopedic; they are smearing campaigns.
Any attempt at trying to remove this bias from these articles will be quickly reverted.
In contrast, when the person, group or movement is not opposed by the extreme left, the lead, the table of contents and the article itself will be much more neutral, stating only major facts and generally avoiding irrelevant minutia. If it's somebody or some entity that the extreme left favors, the lead (and article itself) will be full of exaltation. In this case, if there are any major negative traits, actions or controversies surrounding this person or entity, it will be dealt only briefly. Sometimes these controversies may not even be mentioned at all in the lead of the article (eg. Hillary Clinton), or if they are significant enough to get into the lead, they will be mentioned only very briefly and in passing, usually sandwiched between positive traits, actions and adulation (eg. Bill Clinton).
== Bias by proxy ==
Biased Wikipedia editors maintain the facade of neutrality by adding lots of source citations in their edits. This gives the illusion of the claim being well-sourced. The problem is that these sources are almost invariably highly politically biased themselves. Indeed, it's highly convenient for these editors that the vast majority of the mainstream media is also extremely biased towards the left side of the political spectrum, and is completely unashamed about using their journalistic medium to spout political propaganda. This gives a really convenient excuse for Wikipedia editors to use source citations in these articles, happily and deliberately ignoring how biased those sources are. This is what I like to call "bias by proxy".
This is not just me saying it. This is pretty much the official policy of Wikipedia. I have been told by administrators quite clearly and directly that the "neutrality" clause of Wikipedia rules only applies to editors themselves, it does not apply to the sources of the information. It's official Wikipedia policy that sources can be biased, and it doesn't matter, they can still be quoted.
Of course there's still quite direct bias among Wikipedia editors as well. This direct bias happens in the form of source selection: Naturally left-leaning sources will be preferred over more conservative sources, the latter of which will often be dismissed as "unreliable". At the same time, ridiculously and infamously biased left-leaning sources will happily be used (even against protests from some editors). The SPLC might be the quintessential example (a source that has been repeatedly questioned for its extreme political bias, yet time and again declared "reliable". Because of course it is. It's too much convenient of a source to drop.)
Another form of direct bias happens in how much irrelevant tiny minutia is introduced into an article for smearing the person or entity in question. Invariably, such minutia will not be introduced in article about people that the extreme left likes.
== Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but a resource for political activism ==
Many of the Wikipedia articles about people, groups or movements that the extreme left hates are nothing but endless lists of irrelevant minutia, systematically listing all kinds of minor negative claims and events. This goes blatantly against the Wikipedia policy on undue weight being put onto a subject, but obviously editors do not care.
The fact is that these articles are not encyclopedic. They are resources for political activism. They meticulously collect all possible tidbits that could be used as weapons by political activists, journalists and other such people. These articles are essentially no different from similar articles at Conservapedia (which mostly consist of endless lists of minutia and minor claims); the only difference may be that Wikipedia uses a nicer formatting.
Very conspicuously, and tellingly, such lists do not exist for people and entities that the extreme left does not hate (and especially not for ones that they like).
Perhaps the pinnacle, the ultimate example, of this is the Gamergate article. It's astonishingly long for such an irrelevant subject matter. Consider that, for example, as of writing this the word "threat" appears in the article 82 times, and the word "harassment" appears a whopping 121 times. There are more instances of these two words alone than many articles have words in total. This is absolutely excessive, blatantly breaks the policy on undue weight, and a quite clear indication of the purpose of that article: To act as a resource for political activism. It is not an encyclopedic article in any way, shape or form. It's just an endless list of minutia, meticulously collecting all forms of tidbits, for political activists to use as ammunition. Most of these tidbits are mere claims made by individual people, with no corroborating evidence.
== Discussion is stifled ==
If you try to object to this bias, if you try to discuss the obvious and blatant bias in any individual article, or Wikipedia in general, even if you do it through the proper channels in the proper pages for that kind of discussion, not surprisingly your objections will be dismissed and most often than not locked and often just quietly removed.
In one particular example I wrote an argument in the talk page of such a biased article about one particular claim made in the article that I considered to be completely inappropriate, out of place, and clearly and highly biased. One particular editor tried to claim that the talk page of the article is not the place to discuss such things, even though it most definitely is (since it was talking about one particular claim made in the article, and my proposal to remove it). I quoted the exact Wikipedia rule that stated so. Yet, this editor kept ignoring the very rule that stated that it was the exact page for such a discussion, and kept claiming that it's not, trying to make me stop. Moreover, he started to quietly remove my responses to other editors discussing the matter. I kept reverting his removals, stating vandalism as the cause for the reverting. To my knowledge this editor did not receive any sort of warning or sanction for these actions.
In many other instances any discussion about the political bias of an article will be quickly marked as locked, with some "this is not a forum" excuse tag, and sometimes just quietly removed from the talk page (I have had it happen several times). Trying to start a discussion about Wikipedia's overall policy on political bias, in the proper page for that (ie. the Wikipedia policies discussion page) will usually be locked within minutes, and no such conversation will be allowed to happen even though the subject in question is on-topic and in the proper place (again, I have had it happen.) There is no place in Wikipedia where this discussion can be held; it will be locked within minutes of starting it. This discussion is just not allowed.
Editors who try to remove bias from articles, or simply discuss this bias, will usually receive warnings and even sanctions. Such discussion is not allowed, and will quickly be stifled, locked and removed.
== Why this is important? ==
This is important because the world takes Wikipedia way too seriously. It's like TV: Everybody knows that you shouldn't trust what they claim on TV, yet time and again people fall for it and believe pretty much anything if it's said on TV. The same goes for Wikipedia: Everybody knows that it's an unreliable source, yet time and again people just believe it if Wikipedia claims it. It's a curious and odd quirk of the human psyche: We know we shouldn't trust it, yet we do.
And that's a big problem. Wikipedia is taken way too seriously, and used way too often as a reliable source of information, even though Wikipedia is pretty much a joke. Wikipedia editors shamelessly abuse the power and influence that Wikipedia has, for political activism and propaganda. Wikipedia is abused as a propaganda machine, to amplify and spread the propaganda spouted by left-leaning biased mainstream media. If Wikipedia were considered as much a joke as eg. Conservapedia is, then it wouldn't matter. However, that's not the case. Wikipedia is widely considered a reliable source, even though it most certainly is not.
And that's why this is important.
More interestingly, how did the far left Marxists capture power at Wikipedia?
ReplyDelete