Wikipedia Lies: Studies of Wikipedia Guidelines and Actions Show Clear Pro-Leftist Bias and Suppression of Conservative Factual Views

Posted by freedomforall 6 months, 1 week ago to Education
6 comments | Share | Flag

Wikipedia calls itself “The free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit,” but this is only true for uncontroversial articles. Many controversial topics have additional restrictions about who is allowed to edit them, such as only users who have registered an account and have accumulated a certain number of edits. More relevant to content or sourcing decisions is another type of restriction applied to some topics known as discretionary sanctions. These are a special set of powers given to administrators (admins) in some topic areas that allow them to place blocks or sanctions on any person editing the topic whom they believe to be acting disruptively. Discretionary sanctions can only be authorized by the Arbitration Committee (a.k.a. ArbCom), which is English Wikipedia’s highest ruling body, and usually are authorized at the conclusion of an arbitration case covering a topic.

Discretionary sanctions are authorized in most of Wikipedia’s controversial topics, and cannot be lifted or modified unless there is a consensus among admins to do so. Because it is quite difficult for them to be lifted or modified, and because it is up to admins’ individual judgment what behaviour should be punished under this system, it would be quite easy for any administrator to use this system to suppress one side of a dispute. This could be done by blocking or topic banning most of the editors on one side (a topic ban prohibits a person from contributing to any articles or discussions related to a topic), or by making editors on one side feel unwelcome until they choose to leave. If this were to occur it would affect the balance of participants in discussions about sources or article content, and ultimately affect the outcome of those discussions.

The perceived need to combat right-wing editors is explained in greater detail by a Wikipedia essay stating that editors who are Nazis or racists should be blocked on sight, even if their behaviour is not violating any Wikipedia policies. (This essay uses the terms “racist” and “Nazi” interchangeably.) Wikipedia essays do not have the same force as actual policies, but they are commonly used as guides for administrative actions. The essay’s definition of racism is very broad: A subpage of the essay listing “pages often edited by racists” includes the articles “Ann Coulter,” “Intelligence Quotient,” and “All Lives Matter.”

Individual administrators have expressed similar views. For several years, a personal essay written by one administrator argued that “uncritical right-wing ideology is disqualifying for Wikipedia editors” or (in another version of the essay) that “in my view, believing that Trump is a good president indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia,” although following criticism from several non-admins he rewrote the essay in milder form in May of this year. His rewriting of this essay does not appear to indicate a real shift in attitude about the politics he expects Wikipedia editors to have, as he has expressed a similar sentiment in a subsequent discussion about the Black Lives Matter movement: “You can be one of three things: ally, enemy, or collaborator. Be an ally.”

The most recent major statement about the political views expected from Wikipedia editors has come from the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the non-profit organization that runs Wikipedia. In June 2020, the organization published a statement endorsing the goals of Black Lives Matter, which reads in part: “On these issues, there is no neutral stance. To stay silent is to endorse the violence of history and power; yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It is well past time for racial justice in America and beyond.”

The statement “there is no neutral stance” is probably a reference to Wikipedia’s “Neutral Point of View” policy, which is still an official Wikipedia policy. This is an apparent rejection of a core Wikipedia policy by the site’s parent organization.

Wikipedia’s policy regarding biographies of living people, also known as BLP policy, requires that all statements about living people be supported by a reliable source, and for unsourced and poorly-sourced material to be immediately removed. But like all Wikipedia policies, this policy can only be applied if there is someone willing to uphold it.
The principle illustrated by this series of events is that members of Wikipedia are far less likely to notice and remove vandalism or hoax material if it is in support of a viewpoint that they agree with. (This is true of all viewpoints, both left-leaning and right-leaning.) While this particular example was more severe than most, the same principle also applies to more subtle violations of Wikipedia’s content policies, such as article text not adequately supported by the sources it cites. When Wikipedia’s administrators suppress one side of a dispute in a controversial topic, one of the long-term results is that policy violations favourable to the opposite side may be overlooked for months or years."

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by mccwho 6 months, 1 week ago
    I have called it Lie-a-Pedia for years. Years ago a Law professor tried to update and correct a page about a famous court trial. They refused to accept the actual court transcript as a factual account of the trial and continued to publish the urban legend instead of the actual facts. No matter how many times he tried to updated the page and cite the actual transcript, they changed it back to the non-factual account and removed the transcript. Further they eventually band the Professor just as the OP describes above. I never use Lie-a-Pedia for factual information it's only truth by consensus.
    That means they can just rewrite the facts to whatever they want.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lucky 6 months, 1 week ago
      Just been reading about a similar case where a book criticizing some woke project was published.
      The author, after several attempts, could not get even the name of his book mentioned.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ pixelate 6 months, 1 week ago
    The level of relevance of a Wikipedia entry is inversely proportional to the distance of the subject from objective reality. Example -- if I am doing research regarding mathematics (such as in the field of set theory), the Wiki content is useful. Begin to wander away from objective reality and the content drifts quickly into opinion supported by leftist dogma. Example -- the entry regarding Jared Taylor is slathered in the toddleresque-rant of name-calling . . . the term 'white supremacist' is brazenly offered. Information regarding the Tea Party is slanted with malice towards the organization and its intentions. Investigation of the Hillary Emails and similar Democrat operations tend to insist that allegations against DNC operations are unfounded, nothing to see here, move on. Worse of all, in my estimation, is all of the support offered concerning the Climate Change Agenda.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ gharkness 6 months, 1 week ago
    I don't use Wikipedia much for anything but photographs. Occasionally I'll read an article on a non-controversial subject in which the writers have a good reason to get the information correct (it benefits them and to get it wrong would not benefit them or anyone else).

    It is instructive at times to go into the edit history to see how it has changed, and how recently.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by AmericanWoman 6 months, 1 week ago
    Of Course Wikipedia lies....its a online blog actually that people can log into and make changes....its not a brilliant individual writing the truth they ask for money to keep going honest to goodness, most of these sites were started by liberal lefties.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo