> Maybe the reason wikipedia seems left wing is something to do with the fact that a lot of right wing talking points [fall] apart under scrutiny. I hear peopl

> Maybe the reason wikipedia seems left wing is something to do with the fact that a lot of right wing talking points [fall] apart under scrutiny. I hear people say stuff like that a lot (e.g. reality has a X bias, where X is some identity of the speaker), but I'm convinced it's a flattering fiction. When someone disagrees with something, it often appears to "fall apart" to them when scrutinize it using their incompatible assumptions (e.g. the source of the disagreement). When someone agrees with something that's weak, they tend to avert their eyes from the problem. The end result is people feel they they couldn't be more righteously right, that their opinions are "objective truths," and that their opponents couldn't be more wrong, but the feeling is just a self-serving bias. That bias tends to go unchecked and unmoderated when the opponents are remote from one's day-to-day life and can be thoroughly othered.