5 ms·

I've been funding Wikipedia for years and use it several times daily. It has indeed grown into an amazing source of knowledge documenting this world. However th

I've been funding Wikipedia for years and use it several times daily. It has indeed grown into an amazing source of knowledge documenting this world. However there are insidious problems building up. For example, I've noticed that they are starting to encode a lot of biases into its articles, particularly on topics that are part of the political sphere. These articles often reflect a US progressive-left worldview rather than a balanced view that reflects differing opinions from multiple sides of the aisle. There is also a distinct Western and English cultural bias in how articles describe and frame other countries, other cultures, and other religions. I'm not sure what the fix is for these issues, but it does mean that I seek out opposing perspectives elsewhere when I read articles that concern such topics. It'll probably always be important for readers to seek multiple perspectives, including ones they disagree with, instead of blindly trusting Wikipedia to be correct. After all, it is written by humans.

Bud 6y ago
Could you cite some examples that you feel are especially egregious? Have you tried to remedy this by editing any of those articles and backing up your edits with a solid factual argument?
helloitsian 6y ago
What would be a good place to find one of these biases?
lovecg 6y ago
Could you share an example of a biased article? I haven’t really noticed that (at least for the visible, high profile articles) - the coverage has been as balanced as anywhere. Where it might get “extreme” is on niche topics that few people care about. For example I remember some articles associated with the whole “audiophile” scene were claiming some silly things without much evidence behind them, but that’s pretty innocuous in my view.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  One example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th..., which is about a term called "Cultural Marxism" which has been used by some mainstream right-leaning people as well as some right-leaning extremists (particularly in the past). If you look at the article itself, it titles this article as a "conspiracy theory" and specifically features the conspiracy theory version of "Cultural Marxism" in its opening sentences. However, the term as commonly used in modern times, does not refer to that particular conspiracy theory but is more like a shorthand for leftist ideology that features collectivism, particularly when it infiltrates academic institutions (and not the notion of a coordinated mass conspiracy). From a quick Google search, I was able to find other articles that draw this distinction clearly (example https://spectator.us/whats-wrong-cultural-marxism/ https://spectator.us/whats-wrong-cultural-marxism/). However, the Wikipedia article doesn't draw this distinction well, and it seems intent on casting the phrase "Cultural Marxism" as racist, and so it features the worst interpretation of it. It sources articles that are also written primarily to repudiate right-wing political figures or intellectuals like Jordan Peterson. The related debate and edit wars are apparent when you look at the "Talk" page for this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspira.... Note that the Talk page mentions the article is controversial, is in dispute, that there have been attempts to recruit editors to change the article, there have been circular sources introduced, and so forth. That's just one example, but if you dig deep enough into any topic that has a left- and right- perspective and a Wikipedia article, you'll find the same. Wikipedia is, in my view, developing a US-centric English-centric left-leaning bias. All that said, I still love Wikipedia and will continue to use it everyday. I just worry that like all human-centric institutions, it is itself a target, a theater of battle in the on-going ideological wars.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    The article about the conspiracy theory has a disambiguating note pointing to "Marxist cultural analysis" as a more common term for the non-conspiratorial use of "Cultural Marxism". The remaining question is whether the conspiratorial use is significant/common enough that it deserves to be treated as the "default", and that's an editorial question that could be argued from either side. It's an uncomfortable situation to be sure, but there's no blatant political bias here.
- mattcwilson 6y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting
  - elliotec 6y ago
    What about this article is biased?
    - tgv 6y ago
      I cannot judge if it's biased (in the way meant in this thread), but there is a rather weird statement right in the first section, "Factors that affect decisions": > In psychology, the parental investment theory suggests that basic differences between males and females in parental investment have great adaptive significance and lead to gender differences in mating propensities and preferences.[10] First, the reference is to a text book. That's not good. Second, the theory is not not widely accepted, and did receive criticism. It's certainly not an established fact. Third, the statement's prominent place, and lack of further qualification, suggests that human parents should take care of the amount care men and women invest in parenting, but that's not at all what the theory is about. The article linked explains that very clearly. Why it was placed there is a mystery, but it's not been a neutral, well-informed edit.
      - hobofan 6y ago
        > Second, the theory is not not widely accepted, and did receive criticism. Then contribute a link to that criticism? AFAIK that's the normal policy on widely criticized statements that are still popular enough that they should be mentioned.
zozbot234 6y ago
> These articles often reflect a US progressive-left worldview rather than a balanced view that reflects differing opinions from multiple sides of the aisle. There is also a distinct Western and English cultural bias in how articles describe and frame other countries, other cultures, and other religions. The problem is real as I've mentioned elsewhere, but it's overwhelmingly a sourcing problem. There simply aren't many sources about non-Western or traditionalist (as opposed to modern/progressive) worldviews.
incompatible 6y ago
Conservatives have set up their own version at http://conservapedia.com/ http://conservapedia.com/. I can understand why a lot of that material isn't found in Wikipedia.
Kim_Bruning 6y ago
Saying that (en.)wikipedia has a US progressive-left worldview is subtly misleading. Specifically en.wikipedia.org has a western (US/UK sphere of influence) worldview. This is because en.wikipedia is/can be edited by everyone who speaks English: not just the USA, not just regular English speaking countries, but also all those countries that teach children English as a second language, (and a not insignificant smattering of people who learn English outside of school too) When you compare countries around the world, The United States of America is said to lean rather right of center. Thus from a US perspective you would expect en.wikipedia to appear to indeed be a bit on the left. (this is not a comprehensive answer, but it does cover a lot of the ground)
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > When you compare countries around the world, The United States of America is said to lean rather right of center. I'm not sure that this is the case. Maybe with respect to English-speaking countries, the U.S. leans more capitalistic which some people would call "right". But U.S. society/worldview is nonetheless far more liberal, socially progressive and open to diverse views than most countries around the world.
  - Kim_Bruning 6y ago
    So are you saying that the world has stood still, and that western thought in general and America in particular have not had any sort of positive influence on the world since 1776? ;-)
    - fireattack 6y ago
      I honestly don't understand what your satire is trying to say, and would agree with zozbot234's pretty straight forward reply: the US is probably lean right among Western countries, but compared to all the countries in the world, it's not. Most of Asian and African countries lean much more "right" compared to the US, as a starter.
      - 6y ago

Bud 6y ago

Could you cite some examples that you feel are especially egregious? Have you tried to remedy this by editing any of those articles and backing up your edits with a solid factual argument?

helloitsian 6y ago

What would be a good place to find one of these biases?

lovecg 6y ago

Could you share an example of a biased article? I haven’t really noticed that (at least for the visible, high profile articles) - the coverage has been as balanced as anywhere. Where it might get “extreme” is on niche topics that few people care about. For example I remember some articles associated with the whole “audiophile” scene were claiming some silly things without much evidence behind them, but that’s pretty innocuous in my view.

throwawaysea 6y ago
One example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th..., which is about a term called "Cultural Marxism" which has been used by some mainstream right-leaning people as well as some right-leaning extremists (particularly in the past). If you look at the article itself, it titles this article as a "conspiracy theory" and specifically features the conspiracy theory version of "Cultural Marxism" in its opening sentences. However, the term as commonly used in modern times, does not refer to that particular conspiracy theory but is more like a shorthand for leftist ideology that features collectivism, particularly when it infiltrates academic institutions (and not the notion of a coordinated mass conspiracy). From a quick Google search, I was able to find other articles that draw this distinction clearly (example https://spectator.us/whats-wrong-cultural-marxism/ https://spectator.us/whats-wrong-cultural-marxism/). However, the Wikipedia article doesn't draw this distinction well, and it seems intent on casting the phrase "Cultural Marxism" as racist, and so it features the worst interpretation of it. It sources articles that are also written primarily to repudiate right-wing political figures or intellectuals like Jordan Peterson. The related debate and edit wars are apparent when you look at the "Talk" page for this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspira.... Note that the Talk page mentions the article is controversial, is in dispute, that there have been attempts to recruit editors to change the article, there have been circular sources introduced, and so forth. That's just one example, but if you dig deep enough into any topic that has a left- and right- perspective and a Wikipedia article, you'll find the same. Wikipedia is, in my view, developing a US-centric English-centric left-leaning bias. All that said, I still love Wikipedia and will continue to use it everyday. I just worry that like all human-centric institutions, it is itself a target, a theater of battle in the on-going ideological wars.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  The article about the conspiracy theory has a disambiguating note pointing to "Marxist cultural analysis" as a more common term for the non-conspiratorial use of "Cultural Marxism". The remaining question is whether the conspiratorial use is significant/common enough that it deserves to be treated as the "default", and that's an editorial question that could be argued from either side. It's an uncomfortable situation to be sure, but there's no blatant political bias here.
mattcwilson 6y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting
- elliotec 6y ago
  What about this article is biased?
  - tgv 6y ago
    I cannot judge if it's biased (in the way meant in this thread), but there is a rather weird statement right in the first section, "Factors that affect decisions": > In psychology, the parental investment theory suggests that basic differences between males and females in parental investment have great adaptive significance and lead to gender differences in mating propensities and preferences.[10] First, the reference is to a text book. That's not good. Second, the theory is not not widely accepted, and did receive criticism. It's certainly not an established fact. Third, the statement's prominent place, and lack of further qualification, suggests that human parents should take care of the amount care men and women invest in parenting, but that's not at all what the theory is about. The article linked explains that very clearly. Why it was placed there is a mystery, but it's not been a neutral, well-informed edit.
    - hobofan 6y ago
      > Second, the theory is not not widely accepted, and did receive criticism. Then contribute a link to that criticism? AFAIK that's the normal policy on widely criticized statements that are still popular enough that they should be mentioned.

zozbot234 6y ago

> These articles often reflect a US progressive-left worldview rather than a balanced view that reflects differing opinions from multiple sides of the aisle. There is also a distinct Western and English cultural bias in how articles describe and frame other countries, other cultures, and other religions. The problem is real as I've mentioned elsewhere, but it's overwhelmingly a sourcing problem. There simply aren't many sources about non-Western or traditionalist (as opposed to modern/progressive) worldviews.

incompatible 6y ago

Conservatives have set up their own version at http://conservapedia.com/ http://conservapedia.com/. I can understand why a lot of that material isn't found in Wikipedia.

Kim_Bruning 6y ago

Saying that (en.)wikipedia has a US progressive-left worldview is subtly misleading. Specifically en.wikipedia.org has a western (US/UK sphere of influence) worldview. This is because en.wikipedia is/can be edited by everyone who speaks English: not just the USA, not just regular English speaking countries, but also all those countries that teach children English as a second language, (and a not insignificant smattering of people who learn English outside of school too) When you compare countries around the world, The United States of America is said to lean rather right of center. Thus from a US perspective you would expect en.wikipedia to appear to indeed be a bit on the left. (this is not a comprehensive answer, but it does cover a lot of the ground)

zozbot234 6y ago
> When you compare countries around the world, The United States of America is said to lean rather right of center. I'm not sure that this is the case. Maybe with respect to English-speaking countries, the U.S. leans more capitalistic which some people would call "right". But U.S. society/worldview is nonetheless far more liberal, socially progressive and open to diverse views than most countries around the world.
- Kim_Bruning 6y ago
  So are you saying that the world has stood still, and that western thought in general and America in particular have not had any sort of positive influence on the world since 1776? ;-)
  - fireattack 6y ago
    I honestly don't understand what your satire is trying to say, and would agree with zozbot234's pretty straight forward reply: the US is probably lean right among Western countries, but compared to all the countries in the world, it's not. Most of Asian and African countries lean much more "right" compared to the US, as a starter.
    - 6y ago