I have written about this very subject several times, but I think it deserves repeating because the problem just continues year after year, with no end in sight.
The fact is that Wikipedia is heavily politically biased. Wikipedia articles about people and subjects hated by the American far left have almost zero encyclopedic value (and this is not just petty badmouthing, it literally is so) and are nothing but endless lists of irrelevant minutia that act as resources for far-leftist activists to use. In these articles about people or things that the American far-leftists hate, copious amounts of article space, and even the table of contents, will be dedicated to listing irrelevant minor thing after irrelevant minor thing that can be used to attack that person or thing.
Unsurprisingly source bias is likewise rampant, with absolutely ridiculously biased far-leftist sources being frequently used, while the vast majority of even major and credible right-wing sources are banned. Laughably biased far-leftist activist groups and organizations are often used as citation sources, and sometimes even some individual people's personal opinions.
In contrast, articles about people or things that the American far left likes, or are completely neutral about, will be succinct, to-the-point, containing only major relevant details and, thus, very encyclopedic. Their tables of contents will be reasonable and academic, and the contents will only mention relevant major details and have a very matter-of-fact tone. If there's something objectionable about a person or thing that the American far left likes, it will either not be mentioned at all, or it will only be mentioned very briefly, and usually sandwiched between positive things about it. The overall tone of these articles is extremely and very clearly different from those other ones. The political bias is extremely blatant.
And, unsurprisingly, people who would want to remove this political bias from Wikipedia are routinely banned, using all kinds of lies, and even when they have not broken any of Wikipedia's rules (and the ban messages will usually not even bother to even try to mention any rule that has been broken.)
The editors and moderators responsible for maintaining and enforcing this are so blatant about it that they will sometimes even state it outright, without shame (eg. as response to someone's ban appeal): Yes, editors can be politically biased, and yes, the sources can be politically biased, it's up to the reader to research whether the sources are biased and consider the information accordingly. It's not Wikipedia's duty to use unbiased sources, it's the reader's duty to try to find out for himself.
And this has been going on for at least 15 years. Even longer.
And the one thing that baffles me the most: For all this time, Wikipedia has got a free pass. And for the life of me I cannot understand why.
As you might guess, I watch a lot of political commentators and critics on YouTube, many of whom upload almost daily (sometimes even several times a day), commenting on the latest far-leftist antics, stunts and ridiculous ideas and claims. Sometimes they will comment on extremely big and notorious cases (such as far-leftist activist members of congress doing something particularly egregious or stupid), sometimes they will comment on absolutely minor things, such as a random social media post or online article written by some random far-leftist nobody, whose post will be forgotten literally in a day. Indeed, alongside the really big and impactful stuff, many of these political commentators will upload videos about very minor events, such as just the social media post of some random nobody, or some article published in a very minor and inconsequential online publication, or some random university academic saying something egregious (that will be forgotten in a few days).
From all these thousands and thousands and thousands of such videos I have seen during these 15+ years, can you guess how many have been critical of Wikipedia and its political bias?
Maybe two. Three at most. That's it. And I'm not exaggerating. And even from those maybe three videos, two of them were only very minor comments made in passing, lasting less than 10 seconds. I'm not kidding. I have only ever seen one video that was fully dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia (the one by Steven Crowder), and even that led nowhere.
Wikipedia is by far the biggest "online encyclopedia" in the world. A website read by hundreds of millions of people. The number of visitors is staggering, and Wikipedia is constantly being used as a source of information and being constantly cited. (It's funny that everybody "knows" that Wikipedia shouldn't be trusted for anything, not just political topics but anything, yet everybody still seems to use it as a reliable source of information. It's a bit like TV.)
So given is size and influence, it's just baffling why it gets a free pass. Why nobody is commenting on it, why nobody is criticizing it, why nobody is making videos about it? All these youtubers will make entire videos dedicated to some completely inconsequential random social media post made by some random anonymous person, but they will not make a single video about Wikipedia.
Why? Just why? I genuinely do not understand.
Comments
Post a Comment