6 ms·

The Biases of Wikipedia and Moderators Today

32 points by codeddesign 6y ago

elliekelly 6y ago
> Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are “false.” Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so Reporting the fact that someone has lied, in this case repeatedly, is neutral. And the author not liking that Wikipedia reports those facts is not evidence of Wikipedia’s bias. There are plenty of faults with the site’s moderation but this is not an example of them.
p1necone 6y ago
Reality has a liberal bias.
- baggy_trough 6y ago
  Depends on your point of view, really.
- smitty1e 6y ago
  Liberal in the classical Greek sense of thesis/antithesis/synthesis, or the modern authoritarian sense?
  - smitty1e 6y ago
    Latter, apparently.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't do this here.
CPLX 6y ago
Speaking of Wikipedia, here's an article highly relevant to this thesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
airza 6y ago
I don't know how to put this nicely, but i would not say "a neutral point of view" is synonymous with "the center of the Overton window in the United States".
- p1necone 6y ago
  You phrased this much less confrontationally than I did, so kudos to you.
LeoPanthera 6y ago
Larry Sanger apparently co-founded Wikipedia but I've somehow never heard of him before. Not sure how that escaped me. He's apparently famously critical of Wikipedia. The majority of this article seems to complain about giving facts undue prominence over a "balance" of viewpoints. What's the opposing viewpoint to the truth? Lies? (And his political bias really shows. The Obama article is too positive. The Trump article is too negative. The article about abortion doesn't say how evil it is. And the global warming and vaccine pages don't report enough on "minority viewpoints". It's amazing how consistent the beliefs of the far-right are.) From my non-expert perspective, Wikipedia is doing a surprisingly good job. Even this article actually gives me confidence.
- LyndsySimon 6y ago
  For what it’s worth, I’ve encountered right-skewed articles many times in the past. They seem to be on less popular topics, but they absolutely exist.
  - ScottFree 6y ago
    They exist on far more than just less popular topics. You just never see them. Anything even slightly right of center tends to get censored for hate speech.
    - LeoPanthera 6y ago
      This has never been more appropriate: [Citation Needed]
      - ScottFree 6y ago
        pats you on the head you're adorable. If I were to say "water is wet" would you want proof of that too?
- yellowapple 6y ago
  Yep. I was hoping this would be about e.g. Wikipedia silencing any mention of that one rich guy who married his own daughter and other cases where Wikipedia is not holding to its stated policies, but the examples in this article only seemed to validate the notion that Wikipedia might actually be neutral.
dankememe 6y ago
Wikipedia is a free enterprise, and therefore completely free to do whatever it wants, including being biased.
- p1necone 6y ago
  Being legally allowed to do something doesn't make it morally or ethically okay. Wikipedia is not absolved from criticism just because they aren't breaking the law. I think this article is silly, but I'm responding to you in a more general sense.
- TakuYam 6y ago
  The problem is that Wikipedia masquerades and is portrayed as though it’s just an online encyclopaedia that can be trusted by one and all. Most HN readers know otherwise and have a pinch of salt on hand if they use it but your average high school student isn’t going to be aware of the systemic flaws of Wikipedia and I doubt their teachers do either.
GeneralMayhem 6y ago
This article is insane right-wing propaganda, and if it were written by any other person, would not be appropriate for Hacker News. The only reason it makes sense here is that the fact that the author believes this nonsense is noteworthy (and alarming). "Neutral" does not mean "every opinion is taken seriously." The opinions that this article claims that Wikipedia is "biased" against are obviously and factually false, and in most cases actively dangerous to human lives, Western democracy, and/or the continuation of the human race. >The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject. There is no credible scientific presence, even a minority, that believes that anthropogenic climate change is not a real and present threat, or that vaccinations cause any serious harm. Those are crackpot conspiracy theories. It would be non-neutral - and dangerous both to Wikipedia's credibility and to human lives - to treat them otherwise. >The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention... Benghazi ...but there is a link to "the Benghazi attack" in the infobox >AP phone records scandal ...but there is a subsection about "Government mass surveillance", which links to a larger article. >or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump ...because nobody, not even Donald Trump, can explain what "Obamagate" supposedly is. All it appears to mean is "Obama was bad". The idea that it's specifically tied to surveillance of the Trump campaign - which was completely justified by the numerous and court-proven connections between that organization and Russian intelligence - is a a fabrication of this particular article. >Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are “false.” Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so, especially without attribution. That's not how it works. Trump lies. He lies blatantly, and often. He claims things that are obviously false, and he does so with an unbelievable frequency. A large fraction of the things he says in public are either factually false or total nonsense. To say anything else would be incomprehensibly biased in the other direction.
- defertoreptar 6y ago
  > A large fraction of the things he says in public are either factually false or total nonsense. To say anything else would be incomprehensibly biased in the other direction. The point is that it's not for Wikipedia to say that a person lies. Instead, it needs to point to specific factual instances and quote experts when bringing the idea together.
cmdshiftf4 6y ago
Any self-moderated online forum will eventually skew to the standards of those invest the most time in that forum. You can't expect otherwise really. I also take issue with Sangers pointing out that scholars wouldn't phrase something in a certain way, or make a certain claim. There's no claim that Wikipedia has scholarly credentials, quite the opposite in fact. If you're using Wikipedia for anything but a blurb or jumping-off point on a given topic, then the joke is on you to be honest. It's certainly nothing worth getting wound up about.
XMPPwocky 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra Why is the article so negative here? They describe it as a "legendary creature". Uh-huh. Meanwhile, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse ...no mentions of horses possibly being other things. Why? What are they hiding? > Sightings in northern Mexico and the southern United States have been verified as canids afflicted by mange.[2] According to biologists and wildlife management officials, the chupacabra is an urban legend.[3] And then you go to the article for horses and...hmmm, no citations referencing articles written by those who argue horses aren't real. Oh, so nobody's ever seen something they thought was a horse but actually wasn't? Why won't Wikipedia present both sides? Why is the existence of horses taken for granted? It's shameless censorship, and it won't stand.
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorcerer's_Apprentice#German_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorcerer's_Apprentice#Germ... Die ich rief, die Geister, / Werd' ich nun nicht los Also: Genie out of the bottle, Pandora's Box
xyelos 6y ago
Sanger has some really great ideas, apparently. From his linked ballotpedia article on neutrality: > "A disputed topic is treated neutrally if each viewpoint about it is not asserted but rather presented (1) as sympathetically as possible, bearing in mind that other, competing views must be represented as well, and (2) with an equitable amount of space being allotted to each, whatever that might be." Because, yes, we should definitely give as much space to viewpoints that the earth is flat as to those that say the earth is round.
- LyndsySimon 6y ago
  You should definitely mention it, and fully describe the belief without editorializing. If you don’t, it’s difficult to justify calling it an “encyclopedia”.
- defertoreptar 6y ago
  > Because, yes, we should definitely give as much space to viewpoints that the earth is flat as to those that say the earth is round. As long as scientific sources are referenced and the criticisms are acknowledged, what's the problem with having a flat earth Wikipedia article?
  - LeoPanthera 6y ago
    Nothing. And there is one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
- hedora 6y ago
  I think an article is treated neutrally when the person I agree with screams a lot and throws furniture at the dissenters until they curl into a submissive fetal position on the floor and admit they have lived hollow fruitless lives. I assume Sanger will update whatever lies you’ve referenced to spend equal time on my perspective.
p1necone 6y ago
Perhaps he would perceive https://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page https://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page to have less bias...
codeddesign 6y ago
Why was this post flagged? It’s really sad that the common theme in HN is anti-censorship but at the same time most of the base heavily disapproves of content that doesn’t fit their ideologies or narratives.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  Some of what he’s suggesting is censorship. For example, that Wikipedia ought to remove content that mentions a politician has lied. Advocating censorship under the guise of “free speech” is, in my opinion, manipulative and disingenuous.
mudil 6y ago
Why is this flagged?!

32 points by codeddesign 6y ago

> Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are “false.” Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so Reporting the fact that someone has lied, in this case repeatedly, is neutral. And the author not liking that Wikipedia reports those facts is not evidence of Wikipedia’s bias. There are plenty of faults with the site’s moderation but this is not an example of them.

p1necone 6y ago

Reality has a liberal bias.

baggy_trough 6y ago
Depends on your point of view, really.
smitty1e 6y ago
Liberal in the classical Greek sense of thesis/antithesis/synthesis, or the modern authoritarian sense?
- smitty1e 6y ago
  Latter, apparently.
dang 6y ago
Please don't do this here.

CPLX 6y ago

Speaking of Wikipedia, here's an article highly relevant to this thesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

airza 6y ago

I don't know how to put this nicely, but i would not say "a neutral point of view" is synonymous with "the center of the Overton window in the United States".

p1necone 6y ago
You phrased this much less confrontationally than I did, so kudos to you.

LeoPanthera 6y ago

Larry Sanger apparently co-founded Wikipedia but I've somehow never heard of him before. Not sure how that escaped me. He's apparently famously critical of Wikipedia. The majority of this article seems to complain about giving facts undue prominence over a "balance" of viewpoints. What's the opposing viewpoint to the truth? Lies? (And his political bias really shows. The Obama article is too positive. The Trump article is too negative. The article about abortion doesn't say how evil it is. And the global warming and vaccine pages don't report enough on "minority viewpoints". It's amazing how consistent the beliefs of the far-right are.) From my non-expert perspective, Wikipedia is doing a surprisingly good job. Even this article actually gives me confidence.

LyndsySimon 6y ago
For what it’s worth, I’ve encountered right-skewed articles many times in the past. They seem to be on less popular topics, but they absolutely exist.
- ScottFree 6y ago
  They exist on far more than just less popular topics. You just never see them. Anything even slightly right of center tends to get censored for hate speech.
  - LeoPanthera 6y ago
    This has never been more appropriate: [Citation Needed]
    - ScottFree 6y ago
      pats you on the head you're adorable. If I were to say "water is wet" would you want proof of that too?
yellowapple 6y ago
Yep. I was hoping this would be about e.g. Wikipedia silencing any mention of that one rich guy who married his own daughter and other cases where Wikipedia is not holding to its stated policies, but the examples in this article only seemed to validate the notion that Wikipedia might actually be neutral.

dankememe 6y ago

Wikipedia is a free enterprise, and therefore completely free to do whatever it wants, including being biased.

p1necone 6y ago
Being legally allowed to do something doesn't make it morally or ethically okay. Wikipedia is not absolved from criticism just because they aren't breaking the law. I think this article is silly, but I'm responding to you in a more general sense.
TakuYam 6y ago
The problem is that Wikipedia masquerades and is portrayed as though it’s just an online encyclopaedia that can be trusted by one and all. Most HN readers know otherwise and have a pinch of salt on hand if they use it but your average high school student isn’t going to be aware of the systemic flaws of Wikipedia and I doubt their teachers do either.

GeneralMayhem 6y ago

This article is insane right-wing propaganda, and if it were written by any other person, would not be appropriate for Hacker News. The only reason it makes sense here is that the fact that the author believes this nonsense is noteworthy (and alarming). "Neutral" does not mean "every opinion is taken seriously." The opinions that this article claims that Wikipedia is "biased" against are obviously and factually false, and in most cases actively dangerous to human lives, Western democracy, and/or the continuation of the human race. >The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject. There is no credible scientific presence, even a minority, that believes that anthropogenic climate change is not a real and present threat, or that vaccinations cause any serious harm. Those are crackpot conspiracy theories. It would be non-neutral - and dangerous both to Wikipedia's credibility and to human lives - to treat them otherwise. >The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention... Benghazi ...but there is a link to "the Benghazi attack" in the infobox >AP phone records scandal ...but there is a subsection about "Government mass surveillance", which links to a larger article. >or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump ...because nobody, not even Donald Trump, can explain what "Obamagate" supposedly is. All it appears to mean is "Obama was bad". The idea that it's specifically tied to surveillance of the Trump campaign - which was completely justified by the numerous and court-proven connections between that organization and Russian intelligence - is a a fabrication of this particular article. >Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are “false.” Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so, especially without attribution. That's not how it works. Trump lies. He lies blatantly, and often. He claims things that are obviously false, and he does so with an unbelievable frequency. A large fraction of the things he says in public are either factually false or total nonsense. To say anything else would be incomprehensibly biased in the other direction.

defertoreptar 6y ago
> A large fraction of the things he says in public are either factually false or total nonsense. To say anything else would be incomprehensibly biased in the other direction. The point is that it's not for Wikipedia to say that a person lies. Instead, it needs to point to specific factual instances and quote experts when bringing the idea together.

cmdshiftf4 6y ago

Any self-moderated online forum will eventually skew to the standards of those invest the most time in that forum. You can't expect otherwise really. I also take issue with Sangers pointing out that scholars wouldn't phrase something in a certain way, or make a certain claim. There's no claim that Wikipedia has scholarly credentials, quite the opposite in fact. If you're using Wikipedia for anything but a blurb or jumping-off point on a given topic, then the joke is on you to be honest. It's certainly nothing worth getting wound up about.

XMPPwocky 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra Why is the article so negative here? They describe it as a "legendary creature". Uh-huh. Meanwhile, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse ...no mentions of horses possibly being other things. Why? What are they hiding? > Sightings in northern Mexico and the southern United States have been verified as canids afflicted by mange.[2] According to biologists and wildlife management officials, the chupacabra is an urban legend.[3] And then you go to the article for horses and...hmmm, no citations referencing articles written by those who argue horses aren't real. Oh, so nobody's ever seen something they thought was a horse but actually wasn't? Why won't Wikipedia present both sides? Why is the existence of horses taken for granted? It's shameless censorship, and it won't stand.

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorcerer's_Apprentice#German_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorcerer's_Apprentice#Germ... Die ich rief, die Geister, / Werd' ich nun nicht los Also: Genie out of the bottle, Pandora's Box

xyelos 6y ago

Sanger has some really great ideas, apparently. From his linked ballotpedia article on neutrality: > "A disputed topic is treated neutrally if each viewpoint about it is not asserted but rather presented (1) as sympathetically as possible, bearing in mind that other, competing views must be represented as well, and (2) with an equitable amount of space being allotted to each, whatever that might be." Because, yes, we should definitely give as much space to viewpoints that the earth is flat as to those that say the earth is round.

LyndsySimon 6y ago
You should definitely mention it, and fully describe the belief without editorializing. If you don’t, it’s difficult to justify calling it an “encyclopedia”.
defertoreptar 6y ago
> Because, yes, we should definitely give as much space to viewpoints that the earth is flat as to those that say the earth is round. As long as scientific sources are referenced and the criticisms are acknowledged, what's the problem with having a flat earth Wikipedia article?
- LeoPanthera 6y ago
  Nothing. And there is one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
hedora 6y ago
I think an article is treated neutrally when the person I agree with screams a lot and throws furniture at the dissenters until they curl into a submissive fetal position on the floor and admit they have lived hollow fruitless lives. I assume Sanger will update whatever lies you’ve referenced to spend equal time on my perspective.

p1necone 6y ago

Perhaps he would perceive https://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page https://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page to have less bias...

codeddesign 6y ago

Why was this post flagged? It’s really sad that the common theme in HN is anti-censorship but at the same time most of the base heavily disapproves of content that doesn’t fit their ideologies or narratives.

elliekelly 6y ago
Some of what he’s suggesting is censorship. For example, that Wikipedia ought to remove content that mentions a politician has lied. Advocating censorship under the guise of “free speech” is, in my opinion, manipulative and disingenuous.

mudil 6y ago

Why is this flagged?!