Line 414: | Line 414: | ||
:The first source (Hall) seems to say that individual articles can have an ideological bias, not that there is an overall bias. Certainly this article is a good example of an ideologically biased article. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 13:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC) |
:The first source (Hall) seems to say that individual articles can have an ideological bias, not that there is an overall bias. Certainly this article is a good example of an ideologically biased article. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 13:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
::Yes. Like the American TV show, [[Möbius strip|77 Sunset Strip]].[[File:Andra Martin Efrem Zimbalist Jr. 77 Sunset Strip 1960.JPG|64px|Andra Martin Efrem Zimbalist Jr. 77 Sunset Strip 1960]][[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 13:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC) |
::Yes. Like the American TV show, [[Möbius strip|77 Sunset Strip]].[[File:Andra Martin Efrem Zimbalist Jr. 77 Sunset Strip 1960.JPG|64px|Andra Martin Efrem Zimbalist Jr. 77 Sunset Strip 1960]][[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 13:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=846122003 This removal] by a participant who previously [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=843253549&oldid=843250132 voted to delete] this article is in incredible bad faith. Citing [[WP:ONUS]] this long after the section has been established in this article is [[WP:GAMING]] the system and can be seen as a thinly-veiled rouse to attack the development of this growing article. This short section of content has been stable in this article for weeks now, is sourced well and verifiable, is being further discussed, and is tagged so as to alert readers and to attract more editor attention to the discussion. [[User:MrX|MrX ]], the article was kept with the explicit suggestion that it needs more time to develop. Restore the section. Drop the stick. Stop adding unnecessary drama with such drive-by disruptions. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 14:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:40, 16 June 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Public opinion section
We have an article on Public opinion. It's not exactly an impressive article, but it says "Public opinion consists of the desires, wants, and thinking of the majority of the people; it is the collective opinion of the people of a society or state on an issue or problem." You might not agree with that definition, but certainly most of us would expect a public opinion section to have something in it about the views of the "public", eg popular perceptions. It doesn't. It has the views of two conservative authors, an anti-evolution group and a professor. @Netoholic:, why is this called public opinion? Doug Weller talk 13:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's probably not the clearest term out there, I agree. My intent was to separate the more in-depth, dedicated analyses found in journals (usually behind nonpublic paywalls) from the more mass media commentary. I'm open to other header suggestions, I didn't see one that captured my intent at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. --Netoholic @ 14:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Netoholic -- I've BOLDly retitled it "Other Reports of Ideological Bias". That seems awkward but a better fit for the section content. If there is somewhere a public opinion about WP over ideological basis then feel free to make a new section and put it there. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- p.s. Unclear where to go though. Seems a lot of articles still to draw from -- everyone seems to say yes WP is biased or inept or etcetera, but it is not clear whether the section is going for casual RS articles or that direct complaintees exist or what. The Zhu study is mentioned, but could this use Forbes.com comments on it ? The Guardian mentions 'liberal bias', and co-founder Larry Sanger is reported, studies from Kellog.northwestern.edu, bbr.org, etcetera. Then there's complainants - persons or organizations -- or partisan objectors such as heartland.org, breitbart.com that could be mentioned but need some RS which makes note and/or reviews their complaints. And not that it's citeable, but WP gets poked at by both sides c'pedia and rationalwiki; or odd commentators writing at places like cracked.com.
- "...everyone seems to say yes WP is biased or inept or etcetera" Everyone? That is so very wrong! HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- By "everyone", he obviously means only scotsmen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- "...everyone seems to say yes WP is biased or inept or etcetera" Everyone? That is so very wrong! HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I have further renamed the section to Further claims of ideological bias. It sounds more encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
RfC
There are a few classes of critique under debate on this page at present. There is merit in discussing them formally rather than in the multiple branching threads above.
- Should we include criticism from creationist groups such as the Discovery Institute?
- Should we include criticism from Conservapedia and other fundamentalist groups?
- Should we include criticism from Brian Martin (social scientist) and other article subjects unhappy with the treatment of their work?
Guy (Help!) 21:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Opinions
- My answer to all three would be no unless it is by reference to a reliable independent secondary source that includes objective analysis of the bias motivating the critique, per WP:UNDUE and a whole host of other TLAs. I do not think we should quote mine the internet looking for random grudges against Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- No. Whether it should be included at criticism of Wikipedia is debatable, but that's where it would go, as it's criticism and not anything we should be citing for statements of fact regarding ideological bias on Wikipedia. This should not be a coat rack of opinions but, if it's to exist at all, a summary of in-depth analyses/studies into the subject, published by sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (preferably academic studies, and most definitely not advocacy organizations and personal opinions). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is not "ideological bias" to describe things in scientific terms; it is, indeed, the basic task of an encyclopedia whose mission is to describe things as mainstream sources do. The overwhelming majority of sources, and indeed even federal courts, have described "intelligent design" as a religious argument which exists outside of scientific inquiry, because of its dependence on the existence of something supernatural beyond the reach of science. Arguments that Wikipedia is biased because it declines to call something "science" which is, according to virtually everyone not ideologically committed to the idea, not science, must inevitably fail. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, no, and no. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- No to FRINGE. The sky is blue. That's not ideological bias. O3000 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- No. Not under any circumstances. scope_creep (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment There's no indiscriminate yes or no answer to any of the above. If for example a pissed off author writes a book which ladles criticism on WP for its handling of a particular subject, then inclusion of swathes of that book would be undue. If the NYT goes on to report on the book, puts it into its best seller list, academics in other fields start quoting it and the author goes on to join a bunch of televised discussion forums then it would be daft and undue to exclude it in the article on the subject on which said author is writing. If as a result of the author's position he or she became a notable critic of Wikipedia then mention of that author's name on crit of WP article might be warranted. Edaham (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- For balance, we would obviously then go and find a notable author who has written a book saying Wikipedia's balance is just right. Good luck with that HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- if when searching for such a source “luck” prevailed in the face of a shortage of complimentary opinions, then inclusion of such opinions would be false balance wouldn’t it. You don’t need luck to find verifiable main stream sources. By definition they are right there for the taking. Edaham (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- You have missed my point. From the day this article was created I have repeatedly pointed out that people who don't perceive bias in Wikipedia generally don't write books about it. This article can never be balanced. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- I never miss points. I simply choose not to shoot at them if they are unarmed and defenseless. Edaham (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- You have missed my point. From the day this article was created I have repeatedly pointed out that people who don't perceive bias in Wikipedia generally don't write books about it. This article can never be balanced. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- if when searching for such a source “luck” prevailed in the face of a shortage of complimentary opinions, then inclusion of such opinions would be false balance wouldn’t it. You don’t need luck to find verifiable main stream sources. By definition they are right there for the taking. Edaham (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- For balance, we would obviously then go and find a notable author who has written a book saying Wikipedia's balance is just right. Good luck with that HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- No No No We don't give "equal time" to fringe POV. Except in their own articles where we describe them as fringe POVs. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- This RfC is silly, malformed, and premature. GMGtalk 23:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Don't be ridiculous --- Of course include. The stance above that WP doesn't agree or has normative policies against the objectors is an excellent example of an ideological bias leading to exclusion or POV-pushing. How can this article reasonably deny the very existence of some of the most-often reported areas for bias or the sources of such complaints ??? Would the WP position even be complete to ignore the existence of an WP:FRINGE ??? Markbassett (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Of course not. Such groups are not reliable sources, and therefore deserve no weight in the article. If independent reliable sources report on their opinion, we can include that, along with, of course, descriptions of the groups themselves. Vanamonde (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- No no no. If a reliable source says there is relevant unhappiness with Wikipedia articles, it can be quoted. The examples above are not among those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
This RfC is not neutrally worded with broad phrases like "creationist", "fundamentalist", "other article subjects unhappy with the treatment of their work". It also defaults to the negative, when in fact it was recent removals that prompted this, and the article should be restored to its pre-conflict stable version so that RFC participants can see the specific items that are being discussed. -- Netoholic @ 22:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Breaking RFC template until neutral wording is implemented. Please see WP:RFCST. -- Netoholic @ 22:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- What, exactly, is not neutral about it? We have an article on the Discovery Institute. They are creationists. We have an article on Conservapedia that notes its extreme ideological bias and calls them fundamentalists, based on sources. Martin's article is about how he is unhappy with the coverage of his work. What, exactly are you complaining about here? Guy (Help!) 22:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- To RfC closing admin: This RfC has been somewhat mooted. It was an ill-advised, ill-formed RfC created on the same day the article was nominated for deletion, and both processes were started within 3 days of page creation. The Discovery Institute item hasn't been discussed in any specific way since this RFC started. The RfC opener himself has already mooted the Conservapedia item, which he re-added and has become fairly stable based on later discussion. I'll also add that the RfC opener has a possible WP:BLPCOI in regards to the Brian Martin item (he is mentioned by name within it), which has had separate discussion and hasn't been added back. I suggest a close which leaves the specifics to future consensus discussions or new RfCs on specific items as needed. -- Netoholic @ 07:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Damore
Damore, James (February 2, 2018). "The Case for Diversity". Quillette. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
Netoholic wishes to cite James Damore, the Google employee sacked for sending an anti-diversity memo at Google, as a supporting source for the section on "The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds". I think this is inappropriate. Unlike the other sources cited, Damore is not an expert in this field, but rather someone with a grievance. It also mentions the academic work and Wikipedia only in passing, and only in order to advance a novel synthesis flattering to Damore's agenda. In fact, including Damore weakens the section because any reader familiar with Damore's well known axe-grinding is likely to discount it. This is an op-ed in Quillette, which also raises red flags given the praise heaped on that website by anti-diversity activists like Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson. It's a fringe view by someone with a very obvious vested interest, it lacks academic rigour, and the source lacks the solidity of reputation of a New York Times which might perhaps offset that. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Damore is published by Quillette, a reliable source and this reference is being used to establish verification for Wisdom of the Crowds. WP:UNDUE is being used here simply as a fallback because obviously this does not violate any of our sourcing guidelines. This is not an "op-ed" as characterized - no words to that effect appear on the source, and indeed the source contradicts that by including this
"Editor’s note: this piece is part of an ongoing series on the subject of diversity"
making it clear this is an article and Damore is a guest writer in the series. None of Damore's opinions are used in conjunction with this reference. Even if they were (in a different article/situation), it would be entirely appropriate because the magazine is a reliable secondary source. The only red flag being raised here is a POV/political editor using spurious grounds for removing such an innocuous reference. -- Netoholic @ 08:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)- It is a totally crap source, as Guy said. Abysmal editing. Jytdog (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- WP:CRAP is an interesting essay, but it doesn't appear to be one of our sourcing guidelines. Are you saying Quillette is not a reliable secondary source for a simple verification that this study exists and confirmation of its stated conclusion? -- Netoholic @ 09:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- You failed to address any part of my rationale for exclusion. Try again. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, you can say that, and then people can read my reply. Your rationale is just casting aspersions about the author, which can be ignored. It is the publication which is the source, not the author, and the publication has no issues of reliability. -- Netoholic @ 12:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's the publication, the author, whatever evidence there may be about the quality of the specific article, and our analysis of that information together. Ignoring that, especiallly while claiming that other editors opinions can be ignored, looks like WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed with the last statement made by Netoholic (talk · contribs). Just cause James Damore is controversial to some, doesn't make what he writes automatically not a reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, you can say that, and then people can read my reply. Your rationale is just casting aspersions about the author, which can be ignored. It is the publication which is the source, not the author, and the publication has no issues of reliability. -- Netoholic @ 12:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is a totally crap source, as Guy said. Abysmal editing. Jytdog (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose citing James Damore; an undue opinion by a non-expert. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
"ideological bias on Wikipedia has been mooted"
"ideological bias on Wikipedia has been mooted" - woohoo boys I think we can go home now! Nothing more to see or talk about! Really? This is not sourced, it a gross violation of WP:OR/speculation stated in Wikipedia's voice, and is counter-factual on its face. The prior version of the lead was neutral and consistent with the broad concerns which are evidence in the statements of purpose in the various studies and the general sense of the media. I also object to these general "bull in a china shop" reverts which revert unrelated minor changes (see also [1]) - please show some editorial control. -- Netoholic @ 21:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- The edits were intended to fix the POV lede that did not clearly identify a valid article topic. This article is on life support, because it appears to exist only as a vessel for POV collation of random magazine articles and other unconvincing sources. Whoever wrote that lede, the one you restored, was the mooter. Nobody else mooted ideological bias. The revised language was an improvement in my opininion. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Whatever the intent, you've used a word "mooted" (meaning "no longer relevant") which is not supported by any source. Its a speculative claim spoken in Wikipedia voice. That the mainstream still covers issues of bias is proof of the non-mooted nature of the concerns. The second sentence of the lead already covers (in a much better way) the findings of academic analysis. But nothing supports "mooted". -- Netoholic @ 22:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- As written, your preferred version attributes motives to the researchers which are not stated in the sources, so is WP:SYN. The current version is less obviously leading the reader. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- ...but is written in appallingly sloppy and ambiguous language. This article is becoming less and less encyclopaedic as time goes on and more unhappy campers turn up with their beef. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I removed more speculation. It's now tighter, more neutral, and accurate. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- This article is being fundamentally vandalized by the same set of editors that fought for its deletion as they come to realize that's not likely going to happen. Shameful. NPOV can be achieved by adding material, not erasing it. --Netoholic @ 23:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- ...but is written in appallingly sloppy and ambiguous language. This article is becoming less and less encyclopaedic as time goes on and more unhappy campers turn up with their beef. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- People wanted the article to be deleted because it was bad. Since that is not going to happen, removing the bad parts is the second-best solution. There is nothing shameful about that.
- "NPOV can be achieved by adding material, not erasing it." This is a really crazy claim. NPOV can be achieved by deleting POV coming from unreliable sources and by putting POV into context by ascribing it to a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV "
neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic
". Wikipedia depends on us progressively adding to our topics from the realm of human knowledge. If someone considers an item "POV" but its reliably sourced, then the way to achieve NPOV is to add additional viewpoints that are also sourced. A completely blank page is "NPOV" too, but that doesn't mean it should be our goal. I direct the above editors to start making use of the vast assortment of inline tags to aid in collaboration by identifying specific areas of concern. Slash and burning is counterproductive to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Even better, I ask that once this farcical AfD is done that they perhaps take a bit of time away from the article and give it some room to develop. These blanket removals of content hurt everyone interested in this topic - no matter what your viewpoint is - because it takes away the framework we're trying to build the article from. -- Netoholic @ 04:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)- Representing all the views on the topic sounds wonderful, but in this case the topic itself is NPOV. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- With your reasoning, you can argue against deleting an edit containing hundreds of copies of "PENIS!". The quality of text must be a factor, and it must be allowed to delete stupid bullshit. If there is any point to arguing, your reasoning must go beyond "adding - good! Deleting - bad!" You have to be able to give a real reason why the text in question is an improvement. All you have given us in this section is empty rhetoric. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's simple strawmanning. Respond to what I said - don't make up a flimsy half-assed parody of what I said and then pretend to defeat it. The text in question is an improvement because it is well-sourced. If people think it is POV, they can tag it for future improvement or find new sources and add them as balancing viewpoints. Deleting sourced statements simply takes away any structure the article would have. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that was removed was so egregious that it couldn't wait a day, a week, or longer to get edited for balance or for new sources to be added. -- Netoholic @ 07:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- In two threads now you're sitting on an argument of "It's sourced, so we can include it". Not all sources are worth using. We don't use all content from a source. Yours is a weak argument. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- My entire point is that even if you think its a weak source, there is no need to immediately remove a whole section because of it. We have inline cleanup tags to address just these problems. They alert readers and editors of a potential problem WITHOUT destroying the overall structure of the developing article. They are a collaboration tool and I utterly welcome them. If you delete a whole section and ignore these important tools of collaboration, you're just being difficult to work with. -- Netoholic @ 08:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the closure of the deletion debate with no clear resolution has solved nothing. Many if us do not see this as a developing article. We see it as a POV mess. The fact that it wasn't deleted due to indecisiveness of the closing Admin doesn't change my view on that. I won't stop arguing against adding more garbage to an ever growing heap of POV garbage. This article cannot be saved. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Full marks for creative use of irony. "Difficult to work with"? Do you possess a mirror? Guy (Help!) 22:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- My entire point is that even if you think its a weak source, there is no need to immediately remove a whole section because of it. We have inline cleanup tags to address just these problems. They alert readers and editors of a potential problem WITHOUT destroying the overall structure of the developing article. They are a collaboration tool and I utterly welcome them. If you delete a whole section and ignore these important tools of collaboration, you're just being difficult to work with. -- Netoholic @ 08:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not a strawman. "Adding - good! Deleting - bad!" is the gist of your reasoning in this section. And "it is sourced" is not a good reason either. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not an incoherent collection of references to sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- In two threads now you're sitting on an argument of "It's sourced, so we can include it". Not all sources are worth using. We don't use all content from a source. Yours is a weak argument. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's simple strawmanning. Respond to what I said - don't make up a flimsy half-assed parody of what I said and then pretend to defeat it. The text in question is an improvement because it is well-sourced. If people think it is POV, they can tag it for future improvement or find new sources and add them as balancing viewpoints. Deleting sourced statements simply takes away any structure the article would have. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that was removed was so egregious that it couldn't wait a day, a week, or longer to get edited for balance or for new sources to be added. -- Netoholic @ 07:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV "
U.S. News & World Report
@SPECIFICO: - I don't understand what you mean. This source is from U.S. News & World Report, not "Best Colleges". There isn't a lot of opinion to be had here, its all based on quotes. Also, can you maybe start chilling a bit on the undo button? I am very open to addressing concerns, but none of this has such urgency. Use inline tags, use clear comments, and I will work with you. I'll even research a position or point you think we need more of. But just blanking things is backtracking. -- Netoholic @ 01:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- No Best Colleges is not a work of journalism. It's a self-help/guidebook with more or less arbitrary, casual and corrigible lists, sort of like the pre-season football rankings for all the teams. It is not RS for the assertions I reverted. Find a solid source for this kind of thing, if one exists. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges -- have a look. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is from U.S. News & World Report - the news magazine - not U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking. Two separate journal articles here and here cite it - one specifically as coverage in "news media". -- Netoholic @ 01:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Very weak, find a valid source on this subject. Take it to RSN if you wish. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I did. I checked the archives and all mentions of U.S. News & World Report (and Best Colleges) are regarded highly as reliable sources. In this case, we have the backing if tertiary sources. I am restoring the source and content, and if you feel you can make the case, feel free yourself to bring it to RSN. -- Netoholic @ 04:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Very weak, find a valid source on this subject. Take it to RSN if you wish. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is from U.S. News & World Report - the news magazine - not U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking. Two separate journal articles here and here cite it - one specifically as coverage in "news media". -- Netoholic @ 01:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
USNWR the news magazine/website is not the same as the guide series from the same publisher. Your search for the words US News and World Reports at RSN simply ignores the information I've provided above. No knowledgeable reader or researcher confuses the journalism of the magazine with the how-to self-help articles they use to pad their very imperfect and casual "best colleges" lists or the other similar publications -- Best Hospitals, Best High Schools, Best Cruise Lines, Used Cars, Veterinarians, etc. -- under that imprint. Your arguments for this source, although insistent, are facile and mistaken. SPECIFICO talk 12:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Karl Kehm quote
This edit radically takes context away from the second sentence in the quote. In the section this appears, the topic is concern about the reliability of articles due to possible bias, and Kehm is saying essentially not to use the articles as is, but to use the citations as starting point. This hack of an edit turns a cautionary note into what sounds like a ringing endorsement. Totally misleading. -- Netoholic @ 04:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no bias on Wikipedia?
Questions. Is there no bias on how Wikipedia is edited? If not, then why are there sources, some of them which fall under reliable sources, verify that there is? Has the topic received significant coverage? If it has why was there a concerted effort to delete the article? Does the subject of this article fall under the scope of an existing article, and if so which article(s)? If it does fall under the scope of existing articles, would merging and redirecting this article into an existing article, make that article violate WP:TOOBIG?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- By American standards, Wikipedia may appear left wing. By global standards it generally doesn't. Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia. A lot of American editors seem unable to see that difference. (Or they are pushing their POV?) HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Most researchers study the
USEN Wikipedia, and so its judged by US political standards. Its reliably-sourced, and as long as we explain those studies in that context, its the best we can do. Help is appreciated finding other studies in other languages/regions. -- Netoholic @ 04:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)- There is no such thing as US Wikipedia. This is the English language Wikipedia. Anyone anywhere on earth who is competent in English can contribute. (And we do.) It is global. Perhaps the fact that you see it as the US Wikipedia is what's really at the core of your concerns about its alleged bias. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Fine fine, you caught me making a typo. Relax please. I don't "have concerns" about any bias. I am reporting on the topic as found in sources. -- Netoholic @ 05:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Typo? Nah. More likely a Freudian slip. If you have no concerns about bias, you would never have created an article with this title. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I recognized that there is a gap in our coverage. I also wrote The Return of the Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman - are you going to claim I am pushing the cyborg POV too? Its time to stop accusing me of things you are only guessing at. Help write this article, provide feedback on the article, or depart. I am not interested in your continued WP:ASPERSIONS. -- Netoholic @ 05:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why didn't you call the article "The ideological balance of Wikipedia"? HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Part of the series: Gender bias on Wikipedia, Racial bias on Wikipedia. If you want to suggest a move of all three to "X balance on Wikipedia", you can try. I think people will tell you that's limiting. It would force the articles to be about the demographics only, not the bias that may exist as a result of the demographics. These articles are all about public perception of Wikipedia as documented in external sources, not internal counts. -- Netoholic @ 06:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Netoholic did not write an article on the balance of Wikipedia because he doesn't think Wikipedia is balanced, as his edit history clearly shows. It's up tot he rest of us to wrestle it from his WP:OWNership and keep it neutral. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Right from the start my argument has been that that won't be an easy task. Only those unhappy with it, almost exclusively conservative Americans, write about it. People who don't don't perceive a bias in something don't even think about there being anything worth writing about. This just another place for American conservatives to air their complaints about the world. HiLo48 (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- So it is written about, and thus verifiable that there is at least the perception that there is bias on Wikipedia, if not actual bias.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Right from the start my argument has been that that won't be an easy task. Only those unhappy with it, almost exclusively conservative Americans, write about it. People who don't don't perceive a bias in something don't even think about there being anything worth writing about. This just another place for American conservatives to air their complaints about the world. HiLo48 (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why didn't you call the article "The ideological balance of Wikipedia"? HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I recognized that there is a gap in our coverage. I also wrote The Return of the Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman - are you going to claim I am pushing the cyborg POV too? Its time to stop accusing me of things you are only guessing at. Help write this article, provide feedback on the article, or depart. I am not interested in your continued WP:ASPERSIONS. -- Netoholic @ 05:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Typo? Nah. More likely a Freudian slip. If you have no concerns about bias, you would never have created an article with this title. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Fine fine, you caught me making a typo. Relax please. I don't "have concerns" about any bias. I am reporting on the topic as found in sources. -- Netoholic @ 05:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as US Wikipedia. This is the English language Wikipedia. Anyone anywhere on earth who is competent in English can contribute. (And we do.) It is global. Perhaps the fact that you see it as the US Wikipedia is what's really at the core of your concerns about its alleged bias. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Most researchers study the
Then per WP:BALANCE that should be included (if that can be verified by reliable sources), but what can be verified of the perception of bias, or actual bias, shouldn't be excluded because of other perception that it is "very balanced". Neither side should be excluded, nor should either POV be attacked, that is not what Wikipedia is about IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Then per WP:BALANCE that should be included (if that can be verified by reliable sources)..." Did you actually read what I wrote? My point is that those who don't perceive a problem don't write about the problem they don't see. The inherent nature of this issue is that, while the vast majority of people are happy with Wikipedia's balance, the tiny minority who aren't make a big fuss about their dissatisfaction. Those who a happy don't make such a fuss. "Reliable" sources about the balance are rare, because nobody can be bothered. That is the core problem with this article. It's an article for whiners to complain. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV is very clear about inclusion of material: "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Translation: if enough whiners get their whining published in RS then we can include it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.– Lionel(talk) 06:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- But those for whom the idea that Wikipedia is biased doesn't even cross their minds don't bother writing about the matter. Can you see the problem of achieving balance in that environment? This whole article is simply a platform for conservatives to attack Wikipedia. Not a good look. HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV is very clear about inclusion of material: "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Translation: if enough whiners get their whining published in RS then we can include it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.– Lionel(talk) 06:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Are Hungary and Germany full of white supremacists?
Under Effects, we have "A white supremacist wiki called Metapedia, popular in Hungary and Germany, is published..." It's well sourced. In fact the source says "especially popular" in those places. But it bothers me. There is no explanation given for that statement. I don't believe Hungary and Germany are especially full of white supremacists. So what's going on? Should we really be repeating claims like that with nothing more than a single article to make that implication? Even if true, I believe we need to word it better, or find a better explanation, or....? Ideas? HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah the "especially" wording seemed a bit much, but I felt the source made a point to include mention and we should too. I am curious to look more into the founding of Metapedia and whether it was perceived bias on English, German, or some other language or combination that led to it. Including it helps us keep the focus global (as much as we can based on sources). -- Netoholic @ 04:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am more curious about the claim of its popularity in Germany and Hungary. What's that about? If we cannot explain something that reads pretty much like a slur against those countries, I very much doubt that we should be including it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Deleted it. We do not need to copy all the information a source has. The "16 languages" part is enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Several sources point out that the site is run in Sweden and that the Hungary language version is the largest edition of it. I think these are key points to include if the predominance is there. -- Netoholic @ 05:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't, for reasons I have given above. Can you explain the popularity of white supremacism in Hungary? HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am more curious about the claim of its popularity in Germany and Hungary. What's that about? If we cannot explain something that reads pretty much like a slur against those countries, I very much doubt that we should be including it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Sources and quotes about Metapedia:
- Welcome to the Wikipedia of the Alt-Right: "There’s Metapedia, a wiki with a white supremacist bent, which is published in 16 languages but is especially popular in Hungary and Germany. (On Metapedia, Barack Obama isn’t just a former president, he’s a “mixed race former president,” and the Holocaust is a genocide only according to "politically correct history.") (other mentions later in the article)
- Ikea Fascism: Metapedia and the Internationalization of Swedish Generic Fascism (2015): Very detailed and fully focused on that wiki. Notable things relevant to this article include "Swedish pan-European web encyclopaedia Metapedia, a fascist equivalent of the mainstream Wikipedia", "since mainstream media, including encyclopaedias, are considered to be infested with lies, there is a need, according to Metapedia, for an alternative", chart of article counts and "the Hungarian version is by far the most extensive".
- Conservapedia too pinko? Try Metapedia: "Those among you who feel that Conservapedia - the 'conservative encyclopedia you can trust' dedicated to countering liberal bias - is not sufficiently tough on Marxist-Leninist dogma are directed forthwith to Metapedia, the 'alternative encyclopedia dedicated to the pro-European cultural struggle'."
- Wikipedia U, pg 116: "Still other sources like Conservapedia and Metapedia, 'an electronic encyclopedia which focuses on culture, art, science, philosophy and politics' that 'gives us the opportunity to present a more balanced and fair image of the pro-European struggle,' are best described as ideological correctives to Wikipedia."
I'll add more as I come across them. So far though, I'd say, the European focus of the wiki should be stated, its home location in Sweden, and mention of Hungarian as its top language. We have overlapping, good sources providing these details as important so we should incorporate them (though just in a single sentence for now to match the other listed wikis) - essentially a one-sentence version of what's already part of the Metapedia article lead. -- Netoholic @ 06:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I find it quite difficult discussing things with you. I constantly feel like I'm going round in circles.
- I am not arguing about the content of the sources. I'm wondering about its truth. Tell me more about all those white supremacists in Germany and Hungary. Roughly how many are there? Maybe it's a large fraction of a really tiny number, so statistically meaningless. The claim in the source seems either wrong, or misleading at best. Can you explain it? We don't post scurrilous, insulting nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- We do not attempt to tell WP:TRUTH, we go by what sources predominantly say about topics. This study includes a web traffic chart. Just because say that the Hungarian language is the largest version, doesn't imply anything about Hungary or its people in any general sense. We're just reporting what sources take note of. I also repeat - all of this is already on Metapedia, all that is called for in this article is a short one line about it. -- Netoholic @ 06:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I repeat - We don't post scurrilous, insulting nonsense. I'm from the city that gave the world Rupert Murdoch. I have been watching his journals all my life. They are excellent sources for football results, not so much for the doings of political parties he disagrees with. Wikipedia has to be selective. We don't just find any source and copy nonsense from it. The claim about Hungary and Germany reads like insulting garbage to me. It needs confirmation from somewhere else before we publish it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- We do not attempt to tell WP:TRUTH, we go by what sources predominantly say about topics. This study includes a web traffic chart. Just because say that the Hungarian language is the largest version, doesn't imply anything about Hungary or its people in any general sense. We're just reporting what sources take note of. I also repeat - all of this is already on Metapedia, all that is called for in this article is a short one line about it. -- Netoholic @ 06:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am not arguing about the content of the sources. I'm wondering about its truth. Tell me more about all those white supremacists in Germany and Hungary. Roughly how many are there? Maybe it's a large fraction of a really tiny number, so statistically meaningless. The claim in the source seems either wrong, or misleading at best. Can you explain it? We don't post scurrilous, insulting nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Metapedia is relevant only in as much as it refutes the core premise that Wikipedia is biased. Conservapedia, Infogalactic and other forks exist solely because Wikipedia is not biased. Thankfully shitlords and neo-Nazis are still a minority, and history clearly shows them to be wrong.. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's relevant because sources mention it in relation to the Wikipedia and ideology. Not for what it "refutes". --Netoholic @ 18:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- You say. And I disagree. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- OK JzG, let me expand -multiple sources provide overlapping coverage that these forks were created due to claims of bias, the topic is completely and clearly relevant to the article topics. As it is considered Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others, this section will be restored soon. If you have concerns, use section cleanup tags or inline cleanup tags to mark specific concerns. Deleting a section that contains multiple reliable sources of obvious relevance is a non-starter. -- Netoholic @ 20:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:UNDUE. Somebody mentioned it once doesn't cut it. Conservapedia obviously gets included, because we have a lot of sources including analyses of the specific problem Schlafly has with reality-based projects like Wikipedia, I am still looking for a decent source for InfoGalactice that notes the motivation for its creation (GamerGate shitlords pissed that we reflected the media consensus that they are misogynist asshats). Any fork where we can't show from multiple sources why it was created, is not a valid inclusion in an article on systemic bias in Wikipedia - that would amount to teasing an article out of blow-by-blow accounts of off-wiki fights. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- OK JzG, let me expand -multiple sources provide overlapping coverage that these forks were created due to claims of bias, the topic is completely and clearly relevant to the article topics. As it is considered Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others, this section will be restored soon. If you have concerns, use section cleanup tags or inline cleanup tags to mark specific concerns. Deleting a section that contains multiple reliable sources of obvious relevance is a non-starter. -- Netoholic @ 20:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- You say. And I disagree. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds (2017)
I have concerns about the section The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds (2017). First, it's a single paper. The only other source is an encapsulation by the Heterodox Academy. So, besides being WP:UNDUE, I see several serious flaws in their methodology, for example:
- "Political affiliation was identified through edit histories, under the assumption that political partisans would contribute more to articles consistent with their partisanship" #"We measure editors' alignments by the fraction of bytes they contribute to "Conservative" versus "Liberal" articles on the English-language Wikipedia, ..." - Bad assumption Shih, Teplitskiy, Duede, and Evans. By the way, they validated this by asking 500 editors about their political affiliation and they received 118 responses. Of course, anonymous Wikipedia editors are always honest about their political affiliations when asked.
- "A machine learning algorithm, developed by Wikipedia’s internal researchers, was then employed to rate the quality of each article assessed." MW:ORES is a system designed to help automate critical wiki-work – for example, vandalism detection and removal. I'm going to make a bold assertion that nowhere in the WMF sphere of projects is there an automated tool that can accurately or consistently rate article quality, except in the very narrowest sense of the term "quality". For example, the study considers stub article to be the lowest quality article.
- "Article quality, the assessment of which was based on Wikipedia’s internal guidelines, was then related to the political diversity of the editorial team." (Yikes!)
- According to the Heterodox Academy, "Shih et al. studied the performance of 400,000 Wikipedia editorial teams." - I don't even see that number in the study, nor is it clear where they would even find 400,000 editorial teams.
- "We observed only the behavior of those editors who voluntarily cooperated with others of contrary politics to produce articles of higher quality, or those who avoided such collaborations and produced lower quality articles." - Well, isn't that convenient!
I don't think this study should be included in this article.- MrX 🖋 12:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete It will always be possible to cherrypick non-RS citations like this to cobble together just about any narrative under the sun. Not useful. SPECIFICO talk 12:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- My only real problem with that is I would really like to see a secondary source which discusses it. Otherwise it is a primary source. As to methodology I would leave that up to the secondary source to complain about rather than editors here doing OR. Dmcq (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The section can be salvaged if more secondary sources can be found, and faulty methodology isn't nessicarily a reason to remove (as Dmcq mentioned, we should leave poking holes in the study to secondary sources). I'd say Keep for now with the current section tag, and come back later asking for another consensus if nobody can find any reliable sources about the study. Nanophosis (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Did anyone seek consensus to include a section based entirely on a primary source in the first place? WP:ONUS applies.- MrX 🖋 15:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:SCHOLARSHIP plus the #Damore source was originally part of it. --Netoholic @ 18:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- You mean this:
"Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content."
or this:"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible."
By the way, Damore doesn't make a case for the existence of ideological bias on Wikipedia, but at least it is a secondary source.- MrX 🖋 18:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)- Well, the study itself is the content at hand in that section - no secondary source covers what the study encompasses. Heterodox and Damore are secondary for verification of acceptance of the study's value. As more scholarship is published citing it or other secondary sources are found, the section will evolve. ––Netoholic @ 18:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- You mean this:
- WP:SCHOLARSHIP plus the #Damore source was originally part of it. --Netoholic @ 18:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Exclude this per the rationale above. Obviously evaluating the quality of the source is OR, but per WP:RS we should not use primary sources if they are questionable, and this raises sufficient doubt for me. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually not a bad assumption, and it's not really an assumption once it's validated. They are using a different metric than Greenstein et al. Greenstein is referring to the prior linguistic slant of the article, not the topic category. Atanasov et al is referring to article subject, not content. Atanasov is just pulling directly from article categories. And 118 respondents is perfectly fine. They're only looking at two variables in their validation, and a 0.35 correlation is acceptable for what they're doing with it. Not perfect, but enough to scale up fairly reliably to several thousand articles and get meaningful results. That respondents are anonymous is neither here nor there, because for any similar survey, even one administered in person, respondents would still be anonymous. So that changes nothing methodologically. In fact, the opposite; it would be problematic methodologically if they weren't anonymous.
- The machine learning explanation is here. So yeah. It definitely exists, and seems to do a fairly decent job of estimating human article assessment. So, 62.9% chance of correctly predicting the assessment, and 90.7% chance of predicting the assessment within one level. Not surprisingly, this is least effective at rating C and B level articles, probably because we are ourselves horribly inconsistent in human ratings at these levels. So if you discount those (which IMO they should have done) the accuracy actually goes up quite a bit. But not bad really, and again, perfectly acceptable when you're scaling up to about 50k articles.
- I'm...not sure I understand what the problem with #3 is. That's...one of the core questions they're trying to answer. I don't see why it's inherently problematic, give the literature they review, we should expect that more diverse groups make higher quality articles.
- This appears to be a typo, and an apparent reference to their 49,000 article size sample. By editorial teams, they appear to be speaking about sets of editors on articles, since they're analyzed at the level of distinct-group-per-article. As in, all those of us who have edited and discussed this article are a team of editors, an editorial team.
- I dunno. The rest of the paragraph is about explaining this. But yeah. It was observational and not experimental. If this is being interpreted to mean that "we ignored anyone who didn't fit what we wanted to find" then that's not the correct interpretation of what they're saying. Fact of the matter is you really can't do an experimental design in a way that you might if there were three or four alternative equally consumed and contributed to Wikipedia-like projects.
So yeah. There's nothing inherently problematic about the study. It's findings seem to be pretty well in line with Greenstein's 2017 piece. The bit about semantic and lexical diversity is probably a little to esoteric for WP. The finding that polarization is related to article quality seems fine and relevant, as is the finding that this effect can be seen even in non-political articles. Also that mentions of NPOV, OR, and NOR are most frequently cited and significantly correlated with polarization could be worth mentioning. GMGtalk 18:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
COIN discussion
I have opened a discussion about "COI" considerations" for this page at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia. We'll see if anything useful can be worked out. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Closed that and opened a second one Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia_2 Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Infogalactic
We discuss forks created by those with obvious fringe agendas who accuse Wikipedia of bias (e.g. Conservapedia). One example that has been in and out a few times is Infogalactic. This was created by alt-right troll Vox Day, who was disgruntled with our mainstream-centric version of Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The source favoured is this piece in Salon, which correctly notes that the actual ideological bias lies with Vox Day. The project is (predictably) moribund and has had no attention as far as I can see since the initial launch.
Should InfoGalactic be included? Is the Salon source sufficient to establish it as due weight in an article on ideological bias on Wikipedia? Guy (Help!) 21:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Include - A few which mention Infogalactic and its creation due to "bias" on Wikipedia - Wired, Breitbart (biased/reliable), la Repubblica (la Repubblica an Italian newspaper), The Federalist (biased/reliable), The Daily Beast (biased/reliable), L'Express(L'Express French news). Obviously pertinent and tons of sources. -- Netoholic @ 22:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Those are not due to bias, they are due to fringe complaints of bias. "Not altogether specious" (Wired) is not much to hang your hat on. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- We are not using them as proof of bias, but they are reliable to say that Infogalactic was launched due to Vox Day's claim of bias - specious or not, that's not for us to decide when evaluating the sources. -- Netoholic @ 22:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- There are a coupe of problems with that. First, the Wired article makes it clear that Vox Day's claims of bias are bogus. Second, Wired is a popular, not a heavyweight source. Third, Vox Day is a fringe figure not known for any expertise in analysing bias, or even for his failed career as a minor sci-fi-author, but rather for neo-Nazi apologia, male supremacism and other less-than-stellar characteristics. Nothing about this story shows any evidence of ideological bias on Wikipedia. You could just about use it as a source for "complaints of ideological bias on Wikipedia er often specious". Guy (Help!) 22:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Is it remotely possible that you could discuss this topic WITHOUT the unsourced WP:BLP attacks? I haven't removed them in the above comment only because I don't feel like getting into that revert war... but they are incredibly inappropriate and lack decorum. -- Netoholic @ 23:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- BLP dies not require us to deny the subject's own words. Breivik apologia, for example. "Vox Day, a Gamergate holdover who has assumed the position of racist alt-right figurehead". Vox Day is an edgelord, with all the shit that implies. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Is it remotely possible that you could discuss this topic WITHOUT the unsourced WP:BLP attacks? I haven't removed them in the above comment only because I don't feel like getting into that revert war... but they are incredibly inappropriate and lack decorum. -- Netoholic @ 23:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- There are a coupe of problems with that. First, the Wired article makes it clear that Vox Day's claims of bias are bogus. Second, Wired is a popular, not a heavyweight source. Third, Vox Day is a fringe figure not known for any expertise in analysing bias, or even for his failed career as a minor sci-fi-author, but rather for neo-Nazi apologia, male supremacism and other less-than-stellar characteristics. Nothing about this story shows any evidence of ideological bias on Wikipedia. You could just about use it as a source for "complaints of ideological bias on Wikipedia er often specious". Guy (Help!) 22:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- We are not using them as proof of bias, but they are reliable to say that Infogalactic was launched due to Vox Day's claim of bias - specious or not, that's not for us to decide when evaluating the sources. -- Netoholic @ 22:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Those are not due to bias, they are due to fringe complaints of bias. "Not altogether specious" (Wired) is not much to hang your hat on. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Conservapedia
Conservapedia is probably the most widely discussed example of criticism of Wikipedia's "liberal bias". In my view that criticism is good evidence to the contrary. I added a short para in public opinion because it seems to me to be a very useful illustration of the motives of the more vociferous critics, and it explains the difference between the perceived bias among American conservatives and the objective finding that bias is limited.
- Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly complained that "Wikipedia articles often use British spelling instead of American English" and "facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored".[1] Conservapedia makes extravagant claims of bias on Wikipedia, many of which are contradicted by its own articles.[2] Conservapedia has been criticised for its authoritarian nature and fundamentalist denial of evolution.[3][4][5]
References
- ^ Johnson, Bobbie (2007-03-02). "Conservapedia - the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia". Retrieved 2018-06-02.
- ^ "Conservapedia hopes to "fix" Wikipedia's "liberal bias"". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2018-06-02.
- ^ Marshall, Michael (June 25, 2008). "Creationist critics get their comeuppance". New Scientist. Archived from the original on April 15, 2015.
- ^ Chivers, Tom (October 23, 2009). "Internet rules and laws: the top 10, from Godwin to Poe". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved January 27, 2011.
- ^ Conservapedia has a little hangup over evolution, Charles Arthur, July 1, 2008, The Guardian Technology blog
Netoholic promptly tag-bombed this paragraph. Let us wordsmith it. Incidentally, New Scientist's website seems broken - the link worked yesterday. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC) (note - fixed dead New Scientist link and removed tag Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC))
- I don't understand removing the tags claiming "WP:POINT" - the concerns are valid. You should just remove them as you address the concerns, like that dead link I flagged. Your sense of urgency is really impeding collaboration... maybe wait a bit and let someone else take a look at the tags and suggest changes? -- Netoholic @ 07:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- In your mind. The relevance of Conservapedia's bias when discussing their accusations of bias seems obvious to me. But, you know, feel free to suggest better wording. Also: you are in a minority of one pretty much all the time with this article, so accusing everybody else of failing to collaborate is just m:MPOV. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just you. I tagged problem text to gain input. I have suggested other wording for Conservapedia coverage (in prior sections you've blanked) but I never claim I have the "best" or "right" version of anything. I have tried a lot of things to get you to fairly collaborate. In particular, I've asked you to stop blanking sections and instead use inline tags. And now I've asked you to respect the tags I use and leave them in longer so we can get input. Maybe you missed the "You believe it is necessary for you to repeatedly revert the article" line at m:MPOV? I am impressed you made this talk page section, but it still could be handled better on your part. And probably mine too. -- Netoholic @ 08:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just me and virtually everybody above. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don’t understand why we would include any mention of Conservapedia. Forget the fact that it’s often hilariously goofy and assume it was actually a good faith attempt at presenting a conservative POV. It would still be a wiki, and wikis, including Wikipedia, are not RS. Unless they are totally controlled by a tiny group, they aren’t even RS for presenting their own opinions since they are crowd-edited. Having said that, if it is to be included, I entirely agree with JzG’s position. O3000 (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's worth including a paragraph about Conservapedia and the content as written is a good start. It was created specifically as a response to perceived liberal bias on Wikipedia. There's no benefit to tagging it when there is an active "editing team" right here to address any issues.- MrX 🖋 13:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Conservapedia not being RS doesn’t matter here, because the opinions reported in the paragraph above are sourced to reliable secondary sources, not Conservapedia. Brunton (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, we're not citing Conservapedia, we are highlighting Conservapedia as a prominent response to the claimed bias of Wikipedia, and the thinking of those who make such claims. I'm guessing that most people are probably happy that we are biased in favour of empirically verified fact, but there are those who aren't and they are a leading source of complaints about our "bias". Guy (Help!) 20:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I understand all these good points. I just think it may appear to readers that we’re looking for a reason to document the absurdity of the site in more than one article due to their criticism of WP. We generally focus on fringe sites in articles about them instead of letting the fringe views spread to other articles. But, I accept the consensus. O3000 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, we're not citing Conservapedia, we are highlighting Conservapedia as a prominent response to the claimed bias of Wikipedia, and the thinking of those who make such claims. I'm guessing that most people are probably happy that we are biased in favour of empirically verified fact, but there are those who aren't and they are a leading source of complaints about our "bias". Guy (Help!) 20:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don’t understand why we would include any mention of Conservapedia. Forget the fact that it’s often hilariously goofy and assume it was actually a good faith attempt at presenting a conservative POV. It would still be a wiki, and wikis, including Wikipedia, are not RS. Unless they are totally controlled by a tiny group, they aren’t even RS for presenting their own opinions since they are crowd-edited. Having said that, if it is to be included, I entirely agree with JzG’s position. O3000 (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just me and virtually everybody above. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just you. I tagged problem text to gain input. I have suggested other wording for Conservapedia coverage (in prior sections you've blanked) but I never claim I have the "best" or "right" version of anything. I have tried a lot of things to get you to fairly collaborate. In particular, I've asked you to stop blanking sections and instead use inline tags. And now I've asked you to respect the tags I use and leave them in longer so we can get input. Maybe you missed the "You believe it is necessary for you to repeatedly revert the article" line at m:MPOV? I am impressed you made this talk page section, but it still could be handled better on your part. And probably mine too. -- Netoholic @ 08:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- In your mind. The relevance of Conservapedia's bias when discussing their accusations of bias seems obvious to me. But, you know, feel free to suggest better wording. Also: you are in a minority of one pretty much all the time with this article, so accusing everybody else of failing to collaborate is just m:MPOV. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- As no changes have so far come from this discussion, I've placed the tags back to bring attention. There are WP:V and WP:NPOV concerns that need to be addressed, and putting the tags is better than removing the section for now. -- Netoholic @ 04:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nope. Evidence here suggests yo are the only one who disputes these things. Feel free to raise specific concerns here and suggest better wording, but tag-bombing is disruptive. Guy (Help!) 07:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- +1. Exactly my impression. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nope. Evidence here suggests yo are the only one who disputes these things. Feel free to raise specific concerns here and suggest better wording, but tag-bombing is disruptive. Guy (Help!) 07:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The current version includes the word "American" at the beginning and end of the same sentence. I believe the one in the quote is enough to explain context to the reader, so the using both is redundant and represents poor writing style. Recommend dropping the opening "American" and leave the quote as is. -- Netoholic @ 04:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- If you must, but have you realised yet how significant it is that you and all the other whiners are among the less than 5% of the world's population that are American? This is NOT a global problem for Wikipedia. It is a problem for conservative, US-centric editors. This is obvious to non-American editors, and to many Americans, I wish there was a decent way to get that simple fact into the article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- First, I have never stated here what country I am from, nor my political leanings, so keep your assumptions to yourself. For someone concerned with global problems, you sure are quick to assign nationalistic labels. Second, there is a way to get your view into the article: find a reliable source which agrees with you. I have yet to see a study that confirms any sort of systemic conservative bias on Wikipedia - if I had, it'd be in here. And if you find anything about a US-centric bias, then maybe you can add it to Criticism of Wikipedia#American and corporate bias. -- Netoholic @ 04:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please read my comment again. I am assigning a label to a subset of people from one nation, not all of them, and will not apologise for that. You have clearly ignored or failed to comprehend my earlier comments about sourcing for my position. It's only the whiners who tend to bother to write about Wikipedia alleged bias. Those who don't perceive a bias do not think of there being a problem, so they tend not to write about that, to them, non-existent problem. Do you understand that point? HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- There are 12,400 results on Google Scholar with "Wikipedia" in the title alone. You may say its only "whiners" that write about bias... and I'll counter that by saying academics study Wikipedia not because they are "whiners" but because they are simply curious. The studies in this article were designed to investigate -if- bias exists... not because professors just want to "whine" about it. Maybe the reason you have to repeat yourself or claim no one is listening is because you are simply characterizing this topic incorrectly. -- Netoholic @ 05:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Convince me that an academic, particularly a non-American one, who has never perceived bias in Wikipedia, would even bother studying it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Fascinating. When you add bias to the Google Scholar search it goes down from 12,400 results to 35, and you find that pretty much every study ever written on the supposed ideological bias of Wikipedia is already in the article. It's almost as if Wikipedia is not, in fact, ideologically biased. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- There are 12,400 results on Google Scholar with "Wikipedia" in the title alone. You may say its only "whiners" that write about bias... and I'll counter that by saying academics study Wikipedia not because they are "whiners" but because they are simply curious. The studies in this article were designed to investigate -if- bias exists... not because professors just want to "whine" about it. Maybe the reason you have to repeat yourself or claim no one is listening is because you are simply characterizing this topic incorrectly. -- Netoholic @ 05:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please read my comment again. I am assigning a label to a subset of people from one nation, not all of them, and will not apologise for that. You have clearly ignored or failed to comprehend my earlier comments about sourcing for my position. It's only the whiners who tend to bother to write about Wikipedia alleged bias. Those who don't perceive a bias do not think of there being a problem, so they tend not to write about that, to them, non-existent problem. Do you understand that point? HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- First, I have never stated here what country I am from, nor my political leanings, so keep your assumptions to yourself. For someone concerned with global problems, you sure are quick to assign nationalistic labels. Second, there is a way to get your view into the article: find a reliable source which agrees with you. I have yet to see a study that confirms any sort of systemic conservative bias on Wikipedia - if I had, it'd be in here. And if you find anything about a US-centric bias, then maybe you can add it to Criticism of Wikipedia#American and corporate bias. -- Netoholic @ 04:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Article nominated for DYK
Comments open here [2]. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- And proposing the thumb-on-scales image already removed from the article. Funny, that. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- [3]. Delete after watching. O3000 (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Use of the word "liberal" in the article
The word "liberal" means many different things in different places around the world. For example, the main conservative party in Australia is the Liberal Party. Those arguing that there is a problem with Wikipedia's bias, and also demanding that those objecting to the article should be helping to globalise it, tend to use "liberal" to describe political positions they don't like, including the alleged bias of Wikipedia. We therefore have the ridiculous situation of those wanting it globalised using a very American word. (As a pejorative too, of course.) Until a better, non-ambiguous word is used by the whiners to describe the bias they allege exists, we really cannot get very far. PS: I don't have any suggestions. (But "liberal" doesn't work.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- That’s a potential issue with this article: it’s discussing complaints from the American right that Wikipedia has a bias towards a position that in most of the English-speaking world is regarded as centrist, or even centre-right, and people from positions outside the mainstream (e.g. creationism) complaining that Wikipedia has a bias towards the mainstream position. This is a feature of Wikipedia, not a bug, and if these complaints are reported here then, per WP:FRINGE, it needs to be made clear that they are from outside the mainstream. Brunton (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- We have academic studies which demonstrate a political bias, especially the earliest years of Wikipedia, so at least some of the criticism has proven merit. If there is a view that might be considered "FRINGE", it'd be those that claim bias doesn't or didn't exist. I think we need to tread carefully and just present claims and reactions to claims. A sizable percentage of the world's population is religious, especially Abrahamic religions which believe in a creation, so to them atheism is the "fringe". Last paragraph of WP:EVALFRINGE gives some guidance not to describe them as outside the mainstream, but as religious/political movements. I think the Conservapedia item as of right now does it well, as the reactions are sourced to scientists, not described in terms of mainstream or not. --Netoholic @ 21:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nah. You're still pushing the conservative American view, and don't even realise it. I wish we could get you to leave America and see the world as others see it. Other places may pay lip service to religions that have creation stories, but they don't build arks that will never float to prove one once did. Creationism is an American thing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Fringe" is not the same as "minority". WP:FRINGE says "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". That means, not everybody has a "vote", just the experts on the subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- We have academic studies which demonstrate a political bias, especially the earliest years of Wikipedia, so at least some of the criticism has proven merit. If there is a view that might be considered "FRINGE", it'd be those that claim bias doesn't or didn't exist. I think we need to tread carefully and just present claims and reactions to claims. A sizable percentage of the world's population is religious, especially Abrahamic religions which believe in a creation, so to them atheism is the "fringe". Last paragraph of WP:EVALFRINGE gives some guidance not to describe them as outside the mainstream, but as religious/political movements. I think the Conservapedia item as of right now does it well, as the reactions are sourced to scientists, not described in terms of mainstream or not. --Netoholic @ 21:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well Liberal does have WEIGHT in RS but feel free to propose something else or additional. Perhaps say "American Liberal" for the ideological bias group ? Or perhaps list multiple ideological biases it has been identified with ? There does seem to be a perhaps general American biases for Dualism, Moralising, and Absolutism -- that matters are usually viewed as two-sided and must be absolutely good or absolutely evil. I think there have been mentions of Scientism or Atheism as well. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- User:HiLo48 Inevitably. Just as American liberals (or British Labour) use “Conservative” and “Right-wing” as negatives. Any value system uses its values as labels for ‘good’, and other values are ‘bad’. But these are also neutral and COMMONNAME labels, used by all sides, and NPOV guidance to present all significant POVs in due WEIGHT would say use them even when they are not neutral. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it's possible to use both in a neutral way, but from afar, I rarely see the word "liberal" used as anything but a pejorative in the US. And the problem with using it as a pejorative is that there is nothing inherent about the word that should have led to that. "Conservative" should be just a neutral word. It's easy to use it that way. "Liberal", literally and historically meaning generous or open minded, has actually been given a new meaning by the millions of Americans who use it as a pejorative. It's Newspeak, which is ironic coming from those who tend to not like change. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- The term left-wing is even worse. American liberals are in fact liberals as the term is normally understood, but not left-wing. TFD (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Editorial Bias in Crowd-Sourced Political Information
- A 2015 study by Joshua L. Kalla and colleagues examined contributions to the Wikipedia articles on the then 100 sitting U.S. senators as well as 151 articles on deceased or retired senators. They concluded there was a "clear, systematic bias" in favor of the inclusion of positive facts and the removal of negative facts, but that this was not moderated by the political party of the senator.[a] They also found that this bias was primarily related to whether a politician was currently active, and found no difference among retired living, and retired deceased individuals, indicating the effect is not explained by Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons.[b][1][2]
References
- ^ Kalla, Joshua L.; Aronow, Peter M.; Preis, Tobias (2 September 2015). "Editorial Bias in Crowd-Sourced Political Information". PLOS One. 10 (9): e0136327. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136327. PMC 4558055. PMID 26331611.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ Lewis, Kevin (September 20, 2015). "The rise of Cherie Berry". Uncommon Knowledge. The Boston Globe. Retrieved 5 June 2018.
I found a secondary source for study (which I didn't find when I was first considering this same study for the article). After reading The Boston Globe coverage and re-reading the study, I don't see a strong case for inclusion here. It seems quite apt for (and is already mentioned in) Reliability of Wikipedia since its about what facts are retained in articles from a positive/negative perspective, but doesn't fit as strong in the core focus of this article - ideological bias. I'd suggest moving the section over to there. -- Netoholic @ 09:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- The relevant bit for us is that across 251 articles on current and former US senators, political affiliation was not found to be a significant mediating factor in the treatment of either positive or negative information, regardless of whether the information was cited. Their entire design is aimed at detecting political bias. They just didn't find any, at least not at the level that is detectable by their design. GMGtalk 11:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- This appears to be a paper written three years ago by a person who is still a student. It has four citations including blog.wikimedia. Doesn’t seem like a very good source. O3000 (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Linking this to ideological bias looks to me to be WP:SYN. In as much as it mentions ideological bias, it does so purely in passing, to state that the observed effect is not linked to ideology. All sitting politicians' biographies have a higher bar to inclusion of negative rather than positive information, and this ceases after retirement. That's an interesting nugget - we should be policing WP:BLP just as firmly among the retired. What we can actually see from this study is that Wikipedians scrutinise political biographies more closely and apply more robust standards when there is a risk of skewing an election result. Regardless of party. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- I will say that I disagree with your stated removal reason - "So the study found... no ideological bias. Wait, what?". Even a study which finds no bias would be on-topic for this article. My main question above was about where the section might best be presented. Even if moved to Reliability, it might be worth leaving one-line pointer from here. -- Netoholic @ 09:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- A study that finds no bias, just as a study that finds slight bias, strong bias, mixed nuanced bias, or...even one that reached no conclusion at all and simply recommended further research, would still a finding relevant to the topic of bias.
- Other than that, something something...only partially sarcastic comment about accusing people of ownership in the edit summary of your fourth revert. GMGtalk 12:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Article Name
Article names are supposed to be descriptive and neutral. This title sounds more like a slogan. Suggest we change it to "Neutrality in Wikipedia." TFD (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Only if we do the same for gender bias on Wikipedia and racial bias on Wikipedia. --Netoholic @ 19:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- That would be fine, but not necessary per the arguments at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Saying ‘neutrality in’ or ‘bias in’ are equally a position, but WP:PRECISION and closer to WP:COMMONNAME seems to favor the ‘Ideological bias’ use. Saying ‘neutrality (ideological)’ is just odd. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- It lets the article address the issue of whether or not Wikipedia is neutral, rather than proclaiming in the title that it is not. Do informed people say that Wikipedia is biased because it favors consensus opinion on climate change, the place of Obama's birth and whether or not the moon landing was faked? Or do we say that the neutrality policy dictates that. TFD (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm right with you on this TFC. The current name is clearly one that appealed to the article's creator, someone who believes Wikipedia is biased, and he has picked up a few followers along the way, all agreeing with that non-neutral POV. The name attracts such people, not a healthy situation. I see the name itself as an insult to the vast majority of editors who work in a good faith, balanced way. I would support an RfC to change the name, but would expect a giant manure fight. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Its not that I believe Wikipedia has such bias - my belief means nothing. Reliable external, peer-reviewed studies demonstrate an ideological bias on Wikipedia within the scope of their studies, just as do studies reveal a gender bias on Wikipedia within the scope of those studies. The article racial bias on Wikipedia doesn't seem to have the same level of evidence. Its sources are mostly mainstream news articles, not academic. If the name of that article is fine, in that the title is not seen as implying a bias even though there is no robust evidence, then I don't see what the problem if this one is considering we do have such evidence. Even if there was evidence of no bias, the title would still be accurate. I think you are reading too much into it. Its "on Wikipedia" not "of Wikipedia" - so it doesn't make a statement about Wikipedia as a whole, but rightly covers evidence of certain bias in some places on Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 03:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- You know what I think about the inevitable bias in the sources. Only whiners will write about this topic. Convince me the title is not insulting to most Wikipedia editors. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- There are 118,862 active editors of Wikipedia, I wouldn't know how to approach polling them all. -- Netoholic @ 04:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- If that's the best the creator of the article can come up with, it doesn't have much going for it. This is not meant as an insult to that person. It's meant to highlight how indefensible the title of this article is. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- That is a logical question, not a counting chore. The title is rancid. SPECIFICO talk 08:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Could editors here just stop taking the title personally thanks. Just because it says 'Wikipedia' in the title does not mean it has to be treated any different from anything else. Trying to deal with it any different is against WP:5P and thus against the basis of Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? It's obvious this title blatantly breaches WP:5P2, and also goes well over WP:5P4 by telling most editors that they are biased in their contributions. And your Edit summary is ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Think of it as 'ideological bias in Edubook' or some other made up name like that and you'll see what you say has no basis in fact. You are trying to be some warrior defending the good name of Wikipedia. That is not needed and is counterproductive. Dmcq (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should phrase it stronger. I don't want or need your protection. Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- This article is not needed and is counterproductive. Stop telling me how to behave. Discuss what I have written. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- What I see you writing is you saying the person who started the article is engaged in attacking Wikipedia and asserting that writing it is wrong because the people who would write such stuff are biased. That is what I wrote about. Wikipedia does not need your protection. Productive in Wikipedia is writing good articles on notable topics. It scraped past a deletion debate. Can we go past the deletion debate till the next deletion discussion I'm sure you'll be glad to start after some decent time has been given for it to develop thanks. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- What you see is really not the point. The only way to promote your view is to respond directly to the policy-based objections that have been presented repeatedly and in detail on this page. You may prevail, you may not, but unresponsive complaints are pointless. Please review the question that has been posed. SPECIFICO talk 12:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- I was asked to respond to what was written. And as to you I really do not appreciate you assuming I'm trying to push some point of view or that doing so is a correct thing to do. I think the straightforward answer to the original query is that it is based on the commonname and other similar titles in Wikipediia, if you can find a better title then propose it instead. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- The article title makes no more sense to me than moving the Pizzagate article to “Pedophilia at the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria”. The title, as it stands, is biased itself. What’s wrong with a neutral title? O3000 (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Propose one or give some ideas from which a name might come then. What would a person look for? How have people referred to the topic? What kind of decision have editors on Wikipedia come to in similar circumstances? That is the basis of WP:TITLE. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- As TFD suggested: "Neutrality in Wikipedia". O3000 (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately neutrality has got its own rather special meaning on Wikipedia, I suppose we could live with that except it's not what the sources say either. See Criticism of Wikipedia where this comes under partisanship rather than neutrality, but the sources don't say partisan either, they say political and bias and ideology. Have a look at the references in the article for yourself Dmcq (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Partisanship, political, and ideological all work. "Neutrality" would be nearly deletion through subject change. It would almost completely change the scope of the article. That might work in a way that's logically consistent if this, the gender and race articles were merged into one, but I doubt if there would be a strong consensus for that. GMGtalk 15:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I was just thinking a bit more on this and I agree, neutrality is just too wide, it would encroach on too many sections of Criticism of Wikipedia rather than just one topic under it. Dmcq (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- A merge would be fine with me. But, seems it’s getting more and more difficult to gain consensus for such. O3000 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would be fine with a grand merge into one massive article. This and race are both pretty anemic (not in small part because the WMF have chosen not to collect data on either, and because there are entirely more people here trying to argue, delete, remove and repurpose than there are people trying to develop). The problem is the gender article (the only thing the WMF seems to actually care about discussing), which is developed enough that if not artfully cropped, begs us to ask why we don't summarize and retain the fork, which if we do, means that the other two will probably eventually be forked too once more developed, which means we're really just kicking the can down the road and haven't actually solved anything with all the work it would take to do the merge. But I expect that attempting to crop down the gender article is mostly just going to piss off a lot of people who are married to the issue, and the only way to make everybody happy would be to retain the fork. So there we are. GMGtalk 16:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- As TFD suggested: "Neutrality in Wikipedia". O3000 (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Propose one or give some ideas from which a name might come then. What would a person look for? How have people referred to the topic? What kind of decision have editors on Wikipedia come to in similar circumstances? That is the basis of WP:TITLE. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- What you see is really not the point. The only way to promote your view is to respond directly to the policy-based objections that have been presented repeatedly and in detail on this page. You may prevail, you may not, but unresponsive complaints are pointless. Please review the question that has been posed. SPECIFICO talk 12:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- What I see you writing is you saying the person who started the article is engaged in attacking Wikipedia and asserting that writing it is wrong because the people who would write such stuff are biased. That is what I wrote about. Wikipedia does not need your protection. Productive in Wikipedia is writing good articles on notable topics. It scraped past a deletion debate. Can we go past the deletion debate till the next deletion discussion I'm sure you'll be glad to start after some decent time has been given for it to develop thanks. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- This article is not needed and is counterproductive. Stop telling me how to behave. Discuss what I have written. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? It's obvious this title blatantly breaches WP:5P2, and also goes well over WP:5P4 by telling most editors that they are biased in their contributions. And your Edit summary is ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Could editors here just stop taking the title personally thanks. Just because it says 'Wikipedia' in the title does not mean it has to be treated any different from anything else. Trying to deal with it any different is against WP:5P and thus against the basis of Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- There are 118,862 active editors of Wikipedia, I wouldn't know how to approach polling them all. -- Netoholic @ 04:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- You know what I think about the inevitable bias in the sources. Only whiners will write about this topic. Convince me the title is not insulting to most Wikipedia editors. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Its not that I believe Wikipedia has such bias - my belief means nothing. Reliable external, peer-reviewed studies demonstrate an ideological bias on Wikipedia within the scope of their studies, just as do studies reveal a gender bias on Wikipedia within the scope of those studies. The article racial bias on Wikipedia doesn't seem to have the same level of evidence. Its sources are mostly mainstream news articles, not academic. If the name of that article is fine, in that the title is not seen as implying a bias even though there is no robust evidence, then I don't see what the problem if this one is considering we do have such evidence. Even if there was evidence of no bias, the title would still be accurate. I think you are reading too much into it. Its "on Wikipedia" not "of Wikipedia" - so it doesn't make a statement about Wikipedia as a whole, but rightly covers evidence of certain bias in some places on Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 03:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm right with you on this TFC. The current name is clearly one that appealed to the article's creator, someone who believes Wikipedia is biased, and he has picked up a few followers along the way, all agreeing with that non-neutral POV. The name attracts such people, not a healthy situation. I see the name itself as an insult to the vast majority of editors who work in a good faith, balanced way. I would support an RfC to change the name, but would expect a giant manure fight. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- It lets the article address the issue of whether or not Wikipedia is neutral, rather than proclaiming in the title that it is not. Do informed people say that Wikipedia is biased because it favors consensus opinion on climate change, the place of Obama's birth and whether or not the moon landing was faked? Or do we say that the neutrality policy dictates that. TFD (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Saying ‘neutrality in’ or ‘bias in’ are equally a position, but WP:PRECISION and closer to WP:COMMONNAME seems to favor the ‘Ideological bias’ use. Saying ‘neutrality (ideological)’ is just odd. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- That would be fine, but not necessary per the arguments at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48 since “neutrality” seems also a prejudiced title, and a different topic, I suggest the phrase scholarly sources, reviewers, and complaints all speak of possible “bias”, not possible “neutrality”. Google it yourself and see . Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Amazing that some continue to not believe that the subject of this article doesn't meet WP:GNG, and continue to attempt to thwart its existence. This is not about accepting and agreeing with the topic, but acknowledging that it has received significant coverage and writing about it in an encyclopedic style and ensuring the end result is neutral and balanced by including all POVs regarding the subject.
- This is not an attack on Wikipedia. Sometimes the best way to improve things is to first understand flaws which things claim to have. Wikipedia is a community of people, people are fallible, therefore it will never be perfect.
- As for a comment above about biased sources, please see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. We shouldn't be attempting to advance the bias of sources, but utilize them to document in a neutral way what is stated in them. Otherwise, since most news sources lean to the left on the American political spectrum, if we were to advance those biases, everything that uses those sources would also take on a left leaning bias, and thus not be neutral, thus advancing the sometimes stated claim "Reality has a well-known liberal bias"-S. Colbert.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with
an attack on Wikipedia
. It has to do with a title that suggests a conclusion.. And, frankly,most news sources lean to the left….
suggests you are letting your bias affect your reasoning. What's wrong with a neutral title? O3000 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)- If the entire contents of this article were "There is no bias found on Wikipedia" followed by fifty citations, the current title would still be neutral and correct. --Netoholic @ 21:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, just like Distribution and density of green cheese on the moon. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- If the entire contents of this article were "There is no bias found on Wikipedia" followed by fifty citations, the current title would still be neutral and correct. --Netoholic @ 21:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with
- Wikipedia policy says that views must be presented proportionately according to their coverage in reliable sources. Of course that would means that if reliable sources have a predominately liberal capitalist pro-science outlook (what RCLC calls left-wing), then Wikipedia will provide more coverage to those views. Wikipedia calls that policy neutrality. RightCowLeftCoast, what do you mean by neutrality? An equal balance between evolution and creationism? TFD (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- @TFD: thanks for stating things I did not say, and making the claim that is what I meant. Nice straw man. I ask that editors stop attack other editors, and stick to discussing civilly content.
- Also advancing the bias of sources is not neutral. I am sure no one would want that done for sources which have a bias right of center, thus no one should want that done for sources which have a bias left of center. Understandably each nation has a different center, as others have pointed out earlier.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- RightCowLeftCoast, Wikipedia policy does not say that articles should emphasize any particular country, so that is as you say a straw man argument. But your reply is evasive. What do you mean by neutrality? Does it mean that articles should provide equal weight with what you believe and what reliable sources say? The problem with that approach is that world views are not binary, but there is a wide range of opinions and the political spectrum is broader than Hilary Clinton and Steve Bannon. TFD (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy says that views must be presented proportionately according to their coverage in reliable sources. Of course that would means that if reliable sources have a predominately liberal capitalist pro-science outlook (what RCLC calls left-wing), then Wikipedia will provide more coverage to those views. Wikipedia calls that policy neutrality. RightCowLeftCoast, what do you mean by neutrality? An equal balance between evolution and creationism? TFD (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not an expert on Wikipedia policies. I refuse to use them to pseudo-win an ideological argument. What I will again do here is present the simple and obvious fact that only people who think Wikipedia is biased will write about the subject. Those who neither notice not think about bias in Wikipedia as they read articles will not be motivated to write about it. Given that reality, what is to be gained by building an article around sources from the tiny minority of people from the right who don't like Wikipedia's inevitable centrist position? HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
only people who think Wikipedia is biased will write about the subject[citation needed]
GMGtalk 00:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)- It's called logic. Note my comment that I am not appealing to Wikipedia's arcane policies here.My aim is to build a quality encyclopaedia. Having articles that are nothing more than platforms for the thoughts of right wing whiners does not help. (The same would apply to left wing whiners.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- You know, it's really not that arcane. 90% of it is "don't be a jerk" and "defer to the sources". GMGtalk 01:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I hope you're not implying that anyone contributing here is being a jerk. That would definitely breach Wikipedia policy. And perhaps you missed my comment about the sources potentially available for this article. They cannot be balanced, because their goal will inevitably be to prove that there IS an Ideological bias on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t think GMG was saying that. I still occasionally use the term arcane about the guidelines when welcoming new editors. But, I agree that once you understand the main principles, the guidelines all fall into place and GMG’s reduction to two general concepts is not as simplistic as it sounds. OTOH, I think your opinion that
only people who think Wikipedia is biased will write about the subject
is of worthy mention. Just my opinion. O3000 (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC) - No, the pertinent bit there was the "defer to the sources" part. Your personal opinion on the existential nature of the sources is noted, but irrelevant. GMGtalk 03:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- But it's a biased article name, one which is only supported by biased sources. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I get that your opinion is that it is a biased title and there are no unbiased sources. The article has passed AfD for the moment, think of a better title that is in conformity with WP:TITLE if you are worried about that, otherwise what you are doing comes under what you call whining. As to the sources being biased, Wikipedia seems to cope with that sort of problem quite well elsewhere without deleting articles. And anyway as far as I can see there are good secondary sources that discuss the primary sources in a straightforward fashion. For instance the very first citation Welcome to the Wikipedia of the alt-right, what on earth is your problem with it? Dmcq (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- The whole thing is simply not encyclopaedic. It's about people's opinions. It's about complaining. How does that belong in a quality encyclopaedia? HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm...now that you mention it, it does seem amiss that we don't have an article on Complaining in the every day sense. I suppose I'll get to writing that when I get to a good stopping place. GMGtalk 13:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- The whole thing is simply not encyclopaedic. It's about people's opinions. It's about complaining. How does that belong in a quality encyclopaedia? HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I get that your opinion is that it is a biased title and there are no unbiased sources. The article has passed AfD for the moment, think of a better title that is in conformity with WP:TITLE if you are worried about that, otherwise what you are doing comes under what you call whining. As to the sources being biased, Wikipedia seems to cope with that sort of problem quite well elsewhere without deleting articles. And anyway as far as I can see there are good secondary sources that discuss the primary sources in a straightforward fashion. For instance the very first citation Welcome to the Wikipedia of the alt-right, what on earth is your problem with it? Dmcq (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- But it's a biased article name, one which is only supported by biased sources. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t think GMG was saying that. I still occasionally use the term arcane about the guidelines when welcoming new editors. But, I agree that once you understand the main principles, the guidelines all fall into place and GMG’s reduction to two general concepts is not as simplistic as it sounds. OTOH, I think your opinion that
- I hope you're not implying that anyone contributing here is being a jerk. That would definitely breach Wikipedia policy. And perhaps you missed my comment about the sources potentially available for this article. They cannot be balanced, because their goal will inevitably be to prove that there IS an Ideological bias on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- You know, it's really not that arcane. 90% of it is "don't be a jerk" and "defer to the sources". GMGtalk 01:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's called logic. Note my comment that I am not appealing to Wikipedia's arcane policies here.My aim is to build a quality encyclopaedia. Having articles that are nothing more than platforms for the thoughts of right wing whiners does not help. (The same would apply to left wing whiners.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
RfC about inclusion of Croatian Wikipedia event
In 2013, the Croatian-language version of Wikipedia gained media attention after the daily newspaper Jutarnji list reported on critic's concerns that administrators and editors on the website were projecting a right-wing bias into topics such as the Ustashe regime, anti-fascism, Serbs, the LGBT community, and gay marriage. Many of the critics were former editors of the website who said they had been exiled for expressing concern. The small size of the Croatian Wikipedia — as of September 2013, it had 466 active editors of which 27 were administrators — was cited as a major factor. Two days after the story broke, Croatian Minister Željko Jovanović advised students not to use the website.[1][2][3][4] In 2018, historian Hrvoje Klasic of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb told the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) that he often refers students to the English Wikipedia instead of their native Croatian, especially for topics on Croation history. Goran Hutinec, also a historian at Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, said of the Croatian Wikipedia that is has "many shortcomings, factual mistakes and ideologically loaded language".[5]
References
- ^ Sampson, Tim (October 1, 2013). "How pro-fascist ideologues are rewriting Croatia's history". The Daily Dot. Retrieved May 25, 2018.
- ^ Penić, Goran (10 September 2013). "Desničari preuzeli uređivanje hrvatske Wikipedije" [Right-wing editors took over the Croatian Wikipedia]. Jutarnji list (in Croatian). Retrieved May 25, 2018.
- ^ "Fascist movement takes over Croatian Wikipedia?". InSerbia Today. September 11, 2013. Retrieved May 25, 2018.
- ^ reporter3 (September 17, 2013). "Trolls hijack Wikipedia to turn articles against gays". Gay Star News. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Milekic, Sven (March 26, 2018). "How Croatian Wikipedia Made a Concentration Camp Disappear". Balkan Insight. Zagreb: Balkan Investigative Reporting Network. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
Should the above event related to the Croatian Wikipedia be included in this article? --Netoholic @ 06:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Survey
- Yes - The article is not limited to English Wikipedia, although of course its the most studied and commented upon. We don't limit any other general articles about Wikipedia to English-only content. This Croatian Wikipedia event adds breadth to the coverage in this article, is highly relevant, is interesting in that it shows a case of right-wing bias, and is a brief summary-style section of a topic already covered more widely in the Croatian Wikipedia article. -- Netoholic @ 06:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- No - A tiny, cherry picked example from a version of Wikipedia that's not ever going to be read by most readers of this version. It's simply the article's creator trying to negate arguments that this is all about American right wing whiners not liking the balanced views of this global encyclopaedia. He has failed again. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- No. When people see "ideological bias of Wikipedia" they will interpret it as either the English Wikipedia or all WMF projects. To include this tiny wiki with its dozen or so admins is WP:UNDUE to the point of being actively misleading. As was already discussed and agreed, in fact. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- No Irrelevant undue. SPECIFICO talk 08:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes - Not an easy one this but I think it is better to interpret 'Wikipedia' in the title to refer to any Wikipedia, it's better to have one arrticle than have a multitude of articles about the different ones. The item seems notable in itself judging from the citations but it is too small for an article. I think it should be put in a separate section about non-English Wikipedia's and a small header put in that section about each language Wikipedia being self-governing but under the Wikimedia foundation. Dmcq (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- It belongs in "criticisms of Wikipedia", though, not "ideological bias on Wikipedia", because the issue it highlights is not ideological bias but the vulnerability of small projects to groupthink. We have a study discussed here previously which is directly relevant. Bias is lowest when the editor pool is large. The complaint about hrWP is that a tiny cabal of admins (they only have 20 in total) is imposing ideology on the project. So it's not about ideological bias, it's about small projects and groupthink. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
- FFS, haven't we covered this before? This is trivia. It's a tiny number of editors on a non-English version of Wikipedia. It's a perfect example of blatant cherry picking to try to prove the non-existent point that this isn't just about right wing whiners in the USA. But of course that's what the whole article really is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Didn't you raise concerns on this talk page that the article needed to be more "global"? I would think this qualifies, otherwise the article truly is narrowly confined to the English Wikipedia, or even more narrowly, an American viewpoint. But most of all, this event is simply within the scope of this article. Any other concerns like globalization or left/right dichotomy are secondary. -- Netoholic @ 06:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- What's with adding the asterisks? Please don't change the posts of other editors.
- I have argued against the one-sided perspective of the topic. Finding one pathetic tiny example in a foreign language where the allegations are of different kind of bias does not help. The fact that your example is so tiny and remote from this Wikipedia actually proves my point. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Threading your posts with asterisks helps keep discussion points clear and separate. All articles are a work in progress. The size of the Wiki shouldn't matter. In fact, it might be interesting exactly because its small and vulnerable (since bias complaints were made often back when EN Wikipedia was also small). -- Netoholic @ 07:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have argued against the one-sided perspective of the topic. Finding one pathetic tiny example in a foreign language where the allegations are of different kind of bias does not help. The fact that your example is so tiny and remote from this Wikipedia actually proves my point. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- As I noted at the previous discussion of exactly this: Look at hr:Posebno:Statistika. There are 20 admins on hrWP, and we have single articles that receive more edits per day than that entire project. It is not representative of Wikipedia, and the ideological bias of a small group of admins in a minor language project is a very far cry from being relevant to discussion of the purported ideological bias of Wikipedia. The ideological bias of Wikipedia is well known and well understood and negligible for all practical purposes, as the sources clearly state. It is somewhat liberal, but close to the global political centre. The Overton window has moved so far to the right in the US that some conservatives see Wikipedia as basically Marxist, but that is their problem not ours. Objective studies - which this article includes - show that Wikipedia is, in the main, neutral, and that we are at our best when editors with differing views collaborate. Hence some of our articles on Israel-Palestine are often held up as being very good. What we do not have is a bias towards Croat nationalism that obscures the nature of neo-Nazism. I think it is pretty clear that our article on neo-Naxism doesn't describe it as the opposite of what it is, which is one of the complaints about hrWP. In criticism of Wikipedia you could make an entirely valid point about the vulnerability of small projects to nationalist agendas, especially in the Balkan states where the language is likely to be inextricably linked to nationalist views, but as a point about the supposed ideological bias of Wikipedia it is actively misleading. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- The title of this article is "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" not "Ideological bias of Wikipedia". I think distinction is clouding your interpretation of what this article is meant to cover. -- Netoholic @ 08:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- You already lost this argument once. Now you're losing it again. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see how I can be wrong about the title of this article and the distinction between on and of. If you're talking about the RfC, I guess we'll see how it ends. No harm, no foul either way, though I think this minor expansion of the article is perfectly appropriate since it is an example of ideological bias which happened on a Wikipedia. See you in 30 days. -- Netoholic @ 09:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Which would be valid if the title were "ideological bias on individual Wikimedia Foundation projects". But it isn't. As noted previously by multiple people, "Wikipedia" is going to be interpreted by the reader as enWP or all WMF projects. This is relevant to neither. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see how I can be wrong about the title of this article and the distinction between on and of. If you're talking about the RfC, I guess we'll see how it ends. No harm, no foul either way, though I think this minor expansion of the article is perfectly appropriate since it is an example of ideological bias which happened on a Wikipedia. See you in 30 days. -- Netoholic @ 09:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- You already lost this argument once. Now you're losing it again. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- The title of this article is "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" not "Ideological bias of Wikipedia". I think distinction is clouding your interpretation of what this article is meant to cover. -- Netoholic @ 08:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Academic views
- In 2011, Maurice Hall, an associate professor at Villanova University in the U.S., stated his opinion "that the information can be skewed in directions of ideology or other forms of bias, and so that is why it cannot be taken as a final authority."[1] Sorin Adam Matei, a professor at Purdue University, said in 2018 that, "(f)or certain political topics, there's a central-left bias. There's also a slight, when it comes to more political topics, counter-cultural bias. It's not across the board, and it's not for all things."[2]
References
- ^ Burnsed, Brian (June 20, 2011). "Wikipedia Gradually Accepted in College Classrooms". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2 June 2018.
- ^ Matsakis, Louise (March 16, 2018). "Don't Ask Wikipedia to Cure the Internet". Wired. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
Really? Why are we quoting Hall at all? He's an associate professor expressing a personal opinion. I wouldn't object to Matei being quoted higher up the article (I think he's right) but Hall looks to be WP:UNDUE verging on WP:SYN as far as ideological bias goes. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Everything anyone ever says is "expressing personal opinion" to some degree. These academic views on bias on Wikipedia are used throughout this article. I also think that the Karl Kehm quote in that same source offers another interesting perspective about how, despite concerns about bias, our citations are seen as a valuable resource. -- Netoholic @ 10:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- There's perfectly good sources to balance the article like that, if we had to remove all articles where most of the people who wrote about the topic had a slanted view we'd have to gut an enormous part of it. This topic is not sacrosanct compared to other topics. It is perfectly okay to point to sources sayig Wikipedia is pretty muh balanced like [4]. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- That line of thinking can be just as wrongly applied to an absurd degree about any topic of knowledge because most academics don't write about things outside of their area of interest. That's like asking how we incorporate the views of all the academics that are silent on climate change into that article, or how to incorporate academics silent about colony collapse disorder in that article? -- Netoholic @ 11:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- A secondary source took notice of the associate professor's opinion and reported it. It was an article about education and he warned about possible ideological bias, he didn't mention other types of bias though he said they could occur. U.S. News & World Report is a reliable source, and particularly so on education topics.. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- And a lot of secondary sources ignored it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- This line of reasoning is entirely vacuous. There is likely no conceivable subject on which tens of thousands of academics have not written, and in order to make a meaningful argument on the POV of absent sources, you need a source talking about the absence of sources. Reading entrails about what people who didn't write would have written, or why they didn't, is less than meaningless. GMGtalk 12:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- We could go round in circles on that forever, the issue for me is that this is a single opinion by a single not-very-senior academic with no particular authority, and he's not talking about ideological bias specifically, he's talking about whether Wikipedia is a suitable source for academic work. It may well be an entirely valid point in discussion criticism of Wikipedia (he is mainly talking about the non-expert contributor issue, after all), but the inclusion in this article looks very much like a case of googling Wikipedia +ideology + bias and sticking all the results in the article. US News and World Reports' article was about how Wikipedia is being accepted as a source, it is not about Hall's opinion, it merely namechecks him once. Wired doesn't even do that. It's not a study, not a peer-reviewed analysis, it's a one sentence quote in an article making essentially the opposite point. Hence WP:UNDUE and bordering on WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hall is not UNDUE. The section is relevant. To remove stable content requires consensus. Not the other way around. – Lionel(talk) 12:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for stating your opinion, now would you care to address the actual arguments grounded in policy? As I said, I think Matei's opinion merits inclusion, but the reality of Hall is "in an article discussing the increasing acceptance of Wikipedia as a source, one random junior academic said 'information can be skewed in directions of ideology or other forms of bias, and so that is why it cannot be taken as a final authority'". So it's not about ideological bias on Wikpiedia, it's about Wikipedia's open access model resulting in the potential for bias, classes of which may include ideology. That's a seriously weak source to support this as "academic views" of "ideological bias on Wikipedia". In fact, it's bordering on WP:SYN. Academic views implies studies in the peer reviewed literature, not random soundbytes in newspaper articles. Maybe if the section was "random views", but it's not. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Opinions found in one or two magazines do not really establish due weight, and are misleading in that they pretend to represent an academic view of this subject. Find at least three good sources that cite these opinions in the context of Ideological bias on Wikipedia and then we can talk. Otherwise this should remain out until there is consensus to include it.- MrX 🖋 13:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for stating your opinion, now would you care to address the actual arguments grounded in policy? As I said, I think Matei's opinion merits inclusion, but the reality of Hall is "in an article discussing the increasing acceptance of Wikipedia as a source, one random junior academic said 'information can be skewed in directions of ideology or other forms of bias, and so that is why it cannot be taken as a final authority'". So it's not about ideological bias on Wikpiedia, it's about Wikipedia's open access model resulting in the potential for bias, classes of which may include ideology. That's a seriously weak source to support this as "academic views" of "ideological bias on Wikipedia". In fact, it's bordering on WP:SYN. Academic views implies studies in the peer reviewed literature, not random soundbytes in newspaper articles. Maybe if the section was "random views", but it's not. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Its not WP:SYNTH to gather information from various sources and to editorially organize them in the article, as long as we aren't misleadingly conflating two or more sources to draw a conclusion. In this case, there is two sources and two lines broadly gathered under the heading of "Academic views" as an organizational method, but there is no overlap between them. Personally, I would not mind (eventually) restating this section in Wikipedia's voice, without the quotes and without attributing specific professors, in a way that includes the two main points: academics advice caution with regards to using Wikipedia as a direct source due to the potential for ideological skews and biases, and they recommend to their students to refer to the footnotes/citations of our articles as a good resource and a launch point for doing their own research. I'd suggest we keep it as is for now though with the quotes as I think its less stressful while we're building up the article. I'd be very surprised if there aren't other academics that suggest the same or similar approach. This is just a section (and article) in its earliest growing phase, still gathering sources. Tag it {{Expand section}}, if you want, and let it grow. Removing it just because its lightweight though is working backwards. -- Netoholic @ 13:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hall is not UNDUE. The section is relevant. To remove stable content requires consensus. Not the other way around. – Lionel(talk) 12:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- We could go round in circles on that forever, the issue for me is that this is a single opinion by a single not-very-senior academic with no particular authority, and he's not talking about ideological bias specifically, he's talking about whether Wikipedia is a suitable source for academic work. It may well be an entirely valid point in discussion criticism of Wikipedia (he is mainly talking about the non-expert contributor issue, after all), but the inclusion in this article looks very much like a case of googling Wikipedia +ideology + bias and sticking all the results in the article. US News and World Reports' article was about how Wikipedia is being accepted as a source, it is not about Hall's opinion, it merely namechecks him once. Wired doesn't even do that. It's not a study, not a peer-reviewed analysis, it's a one sentence quote in an article making essentially the opposite point. Hence WP:UNDUE and bordering on WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- This line of reasoning is entirely vacuous. There is likely no conceivable subject on which tens of thousands of academics have not written, and in order to make a meaningful argument on the POV of absent sources, you need a source talking about the absence of sources. Reading entrails about what people who didn't write would have written, or why they didn't, is less than meaningless. GMGtalk 12:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- And a lot of secondary sources ignored it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- The first source (Hall) seems to say that individual articles can have an ideological bias, not that there is an overall bias. Certainly this article is a good example of an ideologically biased article. TFD (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Like the American TV show, 77 Sunset Strip. SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
This removal by a participant who previously voted to delete this article is in incredible bad faith. Citing WP:ONUS this long after the section has been established in this article is WP:GAMING the system and can be seen as a thinly-veiled rouse to attack the development of this growing article. This short section of content has been stable in this article for weeks now, is sourced well and verifiable, is being further discussed, and is tagged so as to alert readers and to attract more editor attention to the discussion. MrX , the article was kept with the explicit suggestion that it needs more time to develop. Restore the section. Drop the stick. Stop adding unnecessary drama with such drive-by disruptions. -- Netoholic @ 14:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the help page).