When it comes to politics, Wikipedia is so extremely biased that it could just as well be considered a left-wing propaganda machine. Because that's what it effectively is.
Wikipedia editors and administrators claim that Wikipedia is neutral, and any perceived bias is just a bias in the mainstream media and reliable sources (which according to Wikipedia official policy can be biased, yet can still be used as "reliable sources" by Wikipedia editors). That Wikipedia simply summarizes what external sources, such as mainstream media, are writing about. If the vast majority of reputable sources are against a particular thing or person, then Wikipedia simply reflects and records those arguments and opinions in a neutral manner.
The excuse of "we are not biased, we merely record and summarize what reliable sources are saying" doesn't really hold water because Wikipedia quite blatantly and intentionally engages in two forms of bias, which shape its articles: Selection of "reliable" sources, and the amount of article space dedicated to a particular topic.
Wikipedia is notorious for their extremely questionable decisions on what is a "reliable source" and what isn't. The bias in this judgment couldn't be clearer, and couldn't be farther to the left side of the political spectrum.
Wikipedia is also extremely egregious when it comes to the amount of text it dedicates to particular subjects, and when you read articles about these subjects it's extremely obvious: Very typically a completely excessive amount of text will be written listing, collecting and emphasizing negative traits and claims about subjects and people that the far left hates. These parts tend to be excessively long, excessively meticulous, containing way too much irrelevant (and often dubious) detail, and are pretty much nothing but endless lists of transgressions and claims of transgressions and negative traits.Very little or no article space is ever dedicated to anything positive about these subjects or people.
Conversely, any negative aspect about subjects or people that the far left supports will have very little article space dedicated to it, and it will usually be written in a very succinct manner, without going into too much irrelevant detail.
Wikipedia editors and admins cannot hide behind the excuse of "we just report on what the mainstream media is saying (and dedicate an amount of text about the subject proportional to what the mainstream media does)" when there are really egregious examples where this just isn't the case.
Perhaps no better example of this is the subject of opinion polls about Trump's presidency, compared to the opinion polls about Biden's presidency.
Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration has an entire separate article about it, and the article is absolutely and needlessly massive, and it even goes so far as to emphasize negative poll results with red and positive results with green.
As far as I know, Donald Trump is not just the only president in the world who has his own separate Wikipedia article dedicated to nothing but opinions polls about him, but in fact he is the only person in existence (past or present) that has one. I have not found a single other similar Wikipedia page about any other person, which does nothing more than have an endless list of opinion poll results. I don't think such a page exists.
Can you guess how much article space is dedicated to opinion polls about the Joe Biden administration?
One very short paragraph in the article Public image of Joe Biden:
Biden's presidential approval rating is 41.3% (approval), and 52.6% (disapproval) as of February 10, 2022. On August 30, 2021, Biden's approval rating fell to 47.2%, with 47.5% disapproving, a net disapproval, for the first time in his presidency up to that point.
That's it. Those are all the numbers listed for Biden. Compare that to the hundreds and hundreds of numbers listed for Trump.
This is most definitely not something that can be attributed to a mere "the mainstream media talks more about Trump's approval numbers than Biden's." The mainstream media, even in the US, does not talk and has never talked this much more, and in this meticulous detail, about Trump's approval ratings.
This bias in the difference in amount of detail is 100% by Wikipedia. They cannot hide behind excuses here.
Comments
Post a Comment