3 ms·

I have found that wikipedia articles have gotten more biased over time. Early on in my usage of wikipedia, it was clear there were substantial issues in article

I have found that wikipedia articles have gotten more biased over time. Early on in my usage of wikipedia, it was clear there were substantial issues in article about things like Israel-Palestine (substantial pro-Israeli bias then), but most articles were still pretty balanced. Now, it seems that on many actively contested political issues (ie. not something about climate change), there is a clear editorial stance. I say that as someone who has only voted D their entire life and likely will continue to do so absent some realignment. Efforts to change articles like these are reverted by high-status wikipedeans who have made articles like these their pet projects and build up a community of defenders. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_investigation_origins_counter-narrative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_investigation_origins_c...

baryphonic 3y ago
A couple years ago, I tried to edit a page about the economist Deidre McCloskey to add some information about a campaign McCloskey had helped organize in the early aughts to attack & discredit the sex researcher Michael Bailey. McCloskey has tried to cultivate a pro-free speech libertarian image, so I was particularly alarmed when I read a thorough accounting of the Bailey affair in a journal article by Alice Dreger.[0] In fact, I had met McCloskey after the Bailey incident, and knew nothing about it based on the excessively mild portrayal in the Wikipedia article. I tried to edit the page with a more accurate description: namely, that McCloskey attempted to have Bailey fired from Northwestern for violating "research ethics" and tried to have his license to practice psychology revoked in Illinois. Those facts seemed relevant to me, especially about someone who claims to be libertarian or "Classical Liberal." Wikipedia editors did not think so. The change was reverted almost immediately, even despite my citation of a high-quality source - much higher quality than the journalism garbage backing up many of the claims made on Wikipedia, yada yada. I eventually gave up after realizing one of the editors was on a moral crusade to suppress this piece of information, and none of the other editors were going to question her bias. I imagine the same thing happens on thousands of other politically sensitive pages. [0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170124/
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  This example probably goes against the hypothesis that there is an increasingly illiberal turn, however, as I can find discussions/arguments about this issue in the talk page dating from 2007. Looking at your edit, I can see why your initial edit was removed (did not really seem npov) but your corrected edit seems fine to me and I do not understand why it was reverted. The current page is net worse in that none of this controversy is even discussed.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deirdre_McCloskey#Bailey_Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deirdre_McCloskey#Bailey_... You gave up pretty quickly! The last response you got was basically: "I agree that the Bailey incident can be expanded and her signature on the Harper letter is worth mentioning, but this has to be written in a neutral way.[...]" Which is as close to "just tidy it up and you're good" as you're going to get, to be frank. Especially seeing earlier contention on the same topic. I wonder which editor you thought was on a moral crusade. The last times the topic was touched were in 2007 and 2017, and your edit was in 2020. It's somewhat unlikely that you'd encounter the same editors as back then to begin with, and as far as I can tell the only interaction you had on-wiki was one response to you, which you didn't reply to. Am I missing something?
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    If I'm seeing correctly, they did tidy it up and resubmit it - where it was then removed (I don't quite understand why - perhaps because they didn't reply to the talk saying so?).
    - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
      The talk page was later. The text still needed a bunch of tidying. Could have asked the other editor to help out! That said, that looks like quite the controversy. Adding that kind of thing to wikipedia is tricky because it can be hard to represent in a neutral way. Same sequence of events could have happened to me, or anyone else. Fortunately other editors are there to help, but you do need to talk with them. (edit) Basically Baryphonic started out fine. Discussing on the talk page was the next logical step, after which you can edit the text to fix the issues. Often this kind of change takes several iterations to iron out the problems.
SanjayMehta 3y ago
Anything not to do with STEM is probably biased. It’s the nature of those subjects. The cofounder of WP himself says the site is compromised. https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_/status/1686396348159987712 https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_/status/1686396348159987712
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Yeah, I think the Trump era pretty much killed NPOV on wikipedia.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- flangola7 3y ago
  That cofounder had some... not impressive takes
  - notrono 3y ago
    How so? Seems pretty insightful to me.
    - SanjayMehta 3y ago
      I’m curious to know too, but not only is there no response, my original comment seems have been downvoted into relative oblivion. The last time I commented on WP, the same thing happened. Interesting.
      - Snowflame 3y ago
        This is because Larry Sanger is crazy. There are legitimate criticisms of Wikipedia to be made, but citing them to Sanger makes them weaker not stronger.
        SanjayMehta 3y ago
flangola7 3y ago
Voting D doesn't mean much.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  I think it makes it less likely I am a pro-Trump partisan, no?

baryphonic 3y ago

A couple years ago, I tried to edit a page about the economist Deidre McCloskey to add some information about a campaign McCloskey had helped organize in the early aughts to attack & discredit the sex researcher Michael Bailey. McCloskey has tried to cultivate a pro-free speech libertarian image, so I was particularly alarmed when I read a thorough accounting of the Bailey affair in a journal article by Alice Dreger.[0] In fact, I had met McCloskey after the Bailey incident, and knew nothing about it based on the excessively mild portrayal in the Wikipedia article. I tried to edit the page with a more accurate description: namely, that McCloskey attempted to have Bailey fired from Northwestern for violating "research ethics" and tried to have his license to practice psychology revoked in Illinois. Those facts seemed relevant to me, especially about someone who claims to be libertarian or "Classical Liberal." Wikipedia editors did not think so. The change was reverted almost immediately, even despite my citation of a high-quality source - much higher quality than the journalism garbage backing up many of the claims made on Wikipedia, yada yada. I eventually gave up after realizing one of the editors was on a moral crusade to suppress this piece of information, and none of the other editors were going to question her bias. I imagine the same thing happens on thousands of other politically sensitive pages. [0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170124/

whimsicalism 3y ago
This example probably goes against the hypothesis that there is an increasingly illiberal turn, however, as I can find discussions/arguments about this issue in the talk page dating from 2007. Looking at your edit, I can see why your initial edit was removed (did not really seem npov) but your corrected edit seems fine to me and I do not understand why it was reverted. The current page is net worse in that none of this controversy is even discussed.
Kim_Bruning 3y ago
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deirdre_McCloskey#Bailey_Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deirdre_McCloskey#Bailey_... You gave up pretty quickly! The last response you got was basically: "I agree that the Bailey incident can be expanded and her signature on the Harper letter is worth mentioning, but this has to be written in a neutral way.[...]" Which is as close to "just tidy it up and you're good" as you're going to get, to be frank. Especially seeing earlier contention on the same topic. I wonder which editor you thought was on a moral crusade. The last times the topic was touched were in 2007 and 2017, and your edit was in 2020. It's somewhat unlikely that you'd encounter the same editors as back then to begin with, and as far as I can tell the only interaction you had on-wiki was one response to you, which you didn't reply to. Am I missing something?
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  If I'm seeing correctly, they did tidy it up and resubmit it - where it was then removed (I don't quite understand why - perhaps because they didn't reply to the talk saying so?).
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    The talk page was later. The text still needed a bunch of tidying. Could have asked the other editor to help out! That said, that looks like quite the controversy. Adding that kind of thing to wikipedia is tricky because it can be hard to represent in a neutral way. Same sequence of events could have happened to me, or anyone else. Fortunately other editors are there to help, but you do need to talk with them. (edit) Basically Baryphonic started out fine. Discussing on the talk page was the next logical step, after which you can edit the text to fix the issues. Often this kind of change takes several iterations to iron out the problems.

SanjayMehta 3y ago

Anything not to do with STEM is probably biased. It’s the nature of those subjects. The cofounder of WP himself says the site is compromised. https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_/status/1686396348159987712 https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_/status/1686396348159987712

whimsicalism 3y ago
Yeah, I think the Trump era pretty much killed NPOV on wikipedia.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
flangola7 3y ago
That cofounder had some... not impressive takes
- notrono 3y ago
  How so? Seems pretty insightful to me.
  - SanjayMehta 3y ago
    I’m curious to know too, but not only is there no response, my original comment seems have been downvoted into relative oblivion. The last time I commented on WP, the same thing happened. Interesting.
    - Snowflame 3y ago
      This is because Larry Sanger is crazy. There are legitimate criticisms of Wikipedia to be made, but citing them to Sanger makes them weaker not stronger.
      - SanjayMehta 3y ago

flangola7 3y ago

Voting D doesn't mean much.

whimsicalism 3y ago
I think it makes it less likely I am a pro-Trump partisan, no?