4 ms·
> I do wonder if this is related to dwindling editor engagement. It increasingly becomes an uphill battle to be a Wikipedia editor - the neutral editors have t
by bad_username 6y ago
> I do wonder if this is related to dwindling editor engagement.
It increasingly becomes an uphill battle to be a Wikipedia editor - the neutral editors have to fight through the ideological gatekeeping and activism on the site. Even the co-founder of Wikipedia declared its neutrality to be dead.
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
- RichEO 6y agoLarry Sanger has been a severe critic of Wikipedia for nearly its entire life. Even putting aside his personal bias, the article you cite is not particularly convincing. As key examples, he compares the Wikipedia pages for Barack Obama (generally positive) and Donald Trump (generally negative) as evidence of failed neutrality. Any definition of neutrality that requires all political figures to be equally criticised and praised would result in a resource that simply has no value. Should the article about Hitler really balance for and against arguments concerning the Holocaust?
- nicky0 6y agoNo one is demanding equal amounts of criticism and praise. The argument in the article is that several valid and noteworthy criticisms of Obama are simply missing. It's hard to see it other than as a whitewash.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]