4 ms·

This might not be quite the examples you're looking for, but here's a study of Wikipedia's leftward bias from Harvard: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle

• three_seagrass 6y ago
  Are you sure? That article talks about how unbiased Wikipedia is: >Our study finds that crowd-based knowledge production does not result in articles with more biased than articles produced by experts when the crowd-based articles are substantially revised.
  • jjcon 6y ago
    > when the crowd-based articles are substantially revised. You literally just had to keep reading to find the cases where they do show bias
    • brendoelfrendo 6y ago
      That's just saying that highly-trafficked, highly-edited articles are going to be less biased than articles with fewer contributors or sources. That... just makes sense, to me; the more visible or relevant an article, the more people (and potentially experts) will weigh in, and the more crowd consensus will drive out the more blatant biases.
    • arp242 6y ago
      It also mentions there a bias in both directions, depending on the topic. Plus, it only considers US viewpoints/political alignments, and not Canadian, British, Australian, or other countries.
  • toomim 6y ago
    Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, also gives a number of examples of Wikipedia's bias in this article: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/