If you read this carefully, you can see something quite ironic about this article: The article's argument is: "Something's terribly wrong with the internet." E

If you read this carefully, you can see something quite ironic about this article: The article's argument is: "Something's terribly wrong with the internet." Evidence provided for something wrong was three pro-Trump comments about an anti-Trump article. The article then suggests "recent research from Harvard Business School suggests that Wikipedia has become increasingly balanced in the course of its 15-year history." So, the internet is biased, and people are uncivil. Wikipedia is civil and not biased; here are some points to learn from them. The irony is that the article itself is no shining beacon of neutrality because it provides an anti-Trump and anti-alt right narrative. Any right-leaning comments must be fixed by editors, but left-leaning comments 'fix themselves over time.' Instead of the article making a sound argument for neutrality, it does nothing of the sort. Disclaimer: criticism of the DNC, media and Clinton != support for Trump. I do not support Trump. This article is masterfully written, but it's not very pure in its intentions.