9 ms·

I can't be the only one who feels that Wikipedia's quality has really started to go downhill over the past 5 or so years. I've noticed more and more articles wh

I can't be the only one who feels that Wikipedia's quality has really started to go downhill over the past 5 or so years. I've noticed more and more articles which read as ridiculously partisan, usually around subjects with any link to politics or current events. That's probably linked to the increasing polarisation in the US, but I get the impression that the sites neutrality policies have gradually been chipped away by introducing concepts like "false balance" as an excuse to pick a side on an issue. I could easily see that causing the site to slowly decline like StackOverflow did, most people don't want to deal with agenda pushing. Fortunately articles related to topics like science and history haven't been significantly damaged by this yet. Something to watch carefully.

amrocha 9mo ago
It’s more likely that you became more radicalized so what used to read as neutral seems partisan now.
- zxcvasd 9mo ago
  [dead]
- FiveOhThree 9mo ago
  Is it radicalised to want even a basic premise of neutrality in an encyclopedia? Despite not being particularly political, even I raise an eyebrow when an article opens with "____ is a <negative label>, <negative label>, <negative label> known for <controversial statement>"
  - InsideOutSanta 9mo ago
    I've never seen an article like that, other than for people like Epstein, who are primarily famous for their crimes. I just went and checked the pages of some famous people where you might expect this kind of treatment if Wikipedia were indeed biased in the way people seem to think (like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz), and they're not like that. There are a lot of comments in this thread talking about a strong bias in Wikipedia, but I don't see any examples. I have no doubt that there are some articles that are biased, particularly in less popular areas that get less attention, but overall, Wikipedia does a great job maintaining a neutral point of view in its articles. I do get the impression that what people perceive as bias is often simply neutrality. If you think yourself the victim of an evil cabal of your political opponents, then a neutral description of the facts might seem like an attack.
    - FiveOhThree 9mo ago
      To be honest I don't keep a list of examples, I usually raise an eyebrow and move on. It's typically on pages for smaller public figures where you get some extremely questionable descriptions. It's also definitely a thing for contentious topics, a while back I tried to look up some info on the Gaza war and some of the pages were a complete battleground. I feel that there was a time when Wikipedia leaned away from using labels like "terrorist", but their modern policy seems to be that if you can find a bunch of news articles that say so then that's what the article should declare in Wikipedia's voice.
  - pavlov 9mo ago
    Please provide an example so we can evaluate what makes even someone as non-political and neutral as you raise an eyebrow.
  - Toutouxc 9mo ago
    Can you please provide an example?
  - amrocha 9mo ago
    That’s not my perception at all, but if you find an article like that please change it! That’s the beauty of wikipedia after all. I recently made my first contribution and it was a really smooth process.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - PurpleRamen 9mo ago
    > Is it radicalised to want even a basic premise of neutrality in an encyclopedia? Facts are not neutral or "balanced". And your whole phrasing smells of someone who doesn't want to be challenged with facts which are against you worldview, which is pretty much against the whole purpose of Wikipedia. > Despite not being particularly political, even I raise an eyebrow when an article opens with "____ is a <negative label>, <negative label>, <negative label> known for <controversial statement>" Without giving the actual example, there seems nothing wrong with this in general. Could be important, could be overrated. But at least I assume it's true, because wrong claims would be a valid problem.
  - burnt-resistor 9mo ago
    I want an improvement upon "Encyclopedia Brittanica". If we have to have governments around the world fund a nonprofit educational equivalent of that, then I'm all for it but we can't keep depending upon a least-common denominator "central public knowledge repository" that's an improperly-managed, easily-manipulated, often incomplete and inaccurate mobacracy fed by largely unknown randos, enough of whom aren't doing so for honest purposes and too many are foolish/crazy/unreliable enough to curate and preserve worthwhile information consistently.
  - could-of 9mo ago
    Indeed, neutral point of view is one of the most important principles of Wikipedia [1]. I only recall phrasing like that being used used in very clear-cut cases, like the word "pseudoscience" in the article on homeopathy. If you don't think something is neutral, the guideline "be bold" [2] encourages you to edit it. You don't have to wait for somebody else to. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
- bakugo 9mo ago
  I mean... this is a very real phenomenon, but probably not in the way you're thinking of. There are many simple statements of fact that, 15 or 20 years ago, were as universally uncontroversial as "the sky is blue", but today are considered radically controversial political opinions, and will get you banned for most online platforms if you dare utter them.
  - amrocha 9mo ago
    No, I don’t think that’s true, and I don’t think you could produce a single example. Keep in mind that stating a fact and dogwhistling are not the same thing.
    - bakugo 9mo ago
      Exactly, you don't think it's true because you don't believe they're facts, you've been radicalized into believing they're "dogwhistles" (a term only used by radicalized people, by the way - if you keep hearing dogwhistles, you might just be a dog.)
      - amrocha 9mo ago
        Still not hearing any examples, just ideology!
  - could-of 9mo ago
    Can you list some specific examples? Do Wikipedia articles on these topics adhere to the facts, or do they take a political stance?
jdauriemma 9mo ago
Example?
gibspaulding 9mo ago
Friendly reminder that we all have the power to improve this! Become an editor and If you come across a problematic article, you can make improvements, or even just flag it as needing work. I know this is not a small ask, and can feel discouraging if you see more issues than you have time to address or your edits are not accepted, but when you consider the relatively small number of editors and the huge number of readers (not to mention AI’s being built on it) it is likely one of the more significant differences you can make towards improving the greater problem polarization.
- FiveOhThree 9mo ago
  The impression I've had from trying to contribute in the past has been that some editors will fight tooth and nail to prevent changes to an article they effectively own. The maze of rules and regulations makes it far too easy to simply block changes by dragging everything through protracted resolution processes. Even something as clear-cut as "the provided source doesn't support this claim at all" becomes an uphill struggle to correct. When it comes to anything related to politics this problem is also exaggerated by editors selectively opposing changes based on whether they apply a desired slant to the text.
  - zozbot234 9mo ago
    The trick these days is to calmly make your case on the talk page first for anything that might be even slightly controversial, before you attempt any editing. So if someone wants to "own" the article they have to engage on the same terms, or you can just point out the lack of opposition and make the edit yourself.
    - FiveOhThree 9mo ago
      That's the thing though, expecting users to have a discussion over even minor changes is extremely off-putting for most potential editors. I've also noticed that a few of these editors seem to be deliberately abrasive towards new users, perhaps with the hope that they'll break a rule by posting insults in frustration. The moment that happens those editors quickly run to the site administration and try to get said user banned. Wikipedia's policies are increasingly treated as a weapon to beat down dissent rather than a guide on how to contribute positively.
hulitu 9mo ago
> That's probably linked to the increasing polarisation in the US, Not really. The phenomenon exists in other languages Wikipedias. I think it is related to the fact that NGOs that "shape" political discourse and politicians have become "sensible" to the text in Wikipedia pages. It is always good, when you read Wikipedia, to "follow the money", i.e. look at the sources, see if they make sense. In the last 5 years, a lot of online platforms, HN also, are used by state actors to spread propaganda and Wikipedia is perfect for that because it presents itself as a "neutral" source.
zahlman 9mo ago
> I can't be the only one who feels that Wikipedia's quality has really started to go downhill over the past 5 or so years. I've noticed more and more articles which read as ridiculously partisan, usually around subjects with any link to politics or current events. I would say this started over a decade ago. Otherwise I completely agree.
- TuringTest 9mo ago
  Oh dear, you need to learn about the GamerGate incident which started August 2012. All the extreme division and online manipulation through the collaborative creation of false narratives started right there, with that issue, before contaminating the entire political landscape. It's the Eternal September of our generation, and it's not recognised enough as such. Before that, the internet was a different place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate
  - zahlman 9mo ago
    That was 2014, not 2012; and I was trying not to mention it.
    - TuringTest 9mo ago
      You're right, I mistyped it.
  - FiveOhThree 9mo ago
    > Gamergate or GamerGate (GG) was a loosely organized misogynistic online harassment campaign motivated by a right-wing backlash against feminism, diversity, and progressivism in video game culture Okay, what the actual fuck? IIRC it was people whining about the absolute state of games journalism in the 2010's.
    - zahlman 9mo ago
      Sigh. Well, now that it's come up.... Fun thing about that. Whenever someone starts going off about how Zoe Quinn was supposedly mistreated and how that supposedly launched a "right-wing backlash against feminism" and a "misogynistic online harassment campaign", quiz them about the "jilted boyfriend" (as they typically put it) who wrote the post that supposedly set everything off. With remarkable consistency, they don't know his name (Eron Gjoni) or anything about his far-left political views, and will refuse to say the name if you ask. They have never read the post and have no idea what it says, and will at most handwave at incredibly-biased third-hand summaries. I'm pretty sure I've even had this happen on HN.
zozbot234 9mo ago
Wikipedia was always insufficiently neutral about political or social topics. At a bare minimum, you need to check whether there are any highlighted controversies in the article talk page.
- amiga386 9mo ago
  Wikipedia itself knows how much shit it's in. Every ongoing conflict and culture-war issue is a "contentious topic", which is Wikipedia code for "editors are at each others' throats" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#List_of_contentious_topics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#L... They have a giant pile of editors banned from topics until they can play nice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Active_editing_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions... But you do give a great tip: at minimum, check the talk page. If it's longer than the article itself, run away. Some articles are so far gone, even the talk page is locked down like Fort Knox. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide That page even has an FAQ! > Q1: Why does this article state that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, even though this is heavily contested and neither the ICJ nor the ICC have issued a final judgment? > A1: A September 2025 request for comment (RfC) decided to state, in Wikipedia's own voice, that it is a genocide. The current lead is the result of later discussion on the specific wording.
  - sequoia 9mo ago
    this is so crazy. How does this accord with wikipedia's NOR & NPV stances? This is a case of "if you abandon your convictions when it's inconvenient, you never really had convictions in the first place."
    - dlubarov 9mo ago
      I would say it absolutely violates the NPOV policy, and it's worth noting that both Wikipedia founders share this view [1] [2]. It's the only thing they've agreed on in many years. Ultimately it's just a numbers game - Wikipedia almost always follows consensus, even when the consensus is to (effectively, without admission) throw neutrality or other rules out the window. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#h-Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales-20251102160300 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#h-Statement_from_Larry_Sanger-Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales-20251104160200 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#...
NoboruWataya 9mo ago
There is pretty much no way this was ever not going to happen, given Wikipedia's position and structure. It is a massive repository of knowledge, that is consulted by millions if not billions of people around the world on a regular basis, that is (in theory) editable by anyone and that has articles on just about every conceivable topic, including many politically charged ones. There must be immense pressure to use it to propagate all kinds of narratives. Given all of that, I think it does as good a job as can be expected of remaining objective, but absolutely you need to be careful when reading articles on politically charged topics (which is true of all media).
beloch 9mo ago
There's a reason why historians tend to view anything more recent than 10-20 years ago as politics. If you don't want to get embroiled in political debates, stick to stuff old enough to be history. There's still politics there, but it's less raw. Wikipedia doesn't restrict itself to topics that are older than ten years ago, so some of their material is necessarily going to be viewed as political. e.g. Wikipedia has a stand-alone page on Elon Musk's Nazi salute[1]. {Edit: It's worth noting here that Wikipedia also maintains separate pages for things like Bill Clinton's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein[3].} This particular page is very interesting because of the sheer amount of political blow-back it's caused for Wikipedia. If you're a Republican, this one page may be the biggest reason you might view Wikipedia as having become "ridiculously partisan". As a direct result of this page, and the refusal to remove or censor it, Musk is now taking aim at Wikipedia and calling for a boycott[2]. He also had his employees produce Grokipedia which, notably, does not include a page on his Nazi salute. Musk may have had a public falling out with Trump, but he is still very much plugged into the Republican party. He's about to throw a lot of money at the mid-term elections. So, naturally, one hand washes the other and Wikipedia is on every good Republican's hit list. The kicker is that a lot of Republicans, who don't like Musk and think he's a Nazi/idiot, are going to feel a lot of Musk-instigated pressure from their own party to target Wikipedia. This is the price Wikipedia pays for including recent events and refusing to bow to demands for censorship. __________________ [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk_salute_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk_salute_controversy [2]https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2025/01/29/why-elon-musk-is-calling-for-a-boycott-of-wikipedia_6737574_13.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2025/01/29/why-elon... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_Bill_Clinton_and_Jeffrey_Epstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_Bill_Clinton_a... Disclosure: I'm Canadian and am neither a Republican or a Democrat.
- FiveOhThree 9mo ago
  I'm also not American so I'm not well-versed in this topic, but perhaps to raise the obvious: Does Wikipedia really need a page running for thousands of words on Musk allegedly making a Nazi salute? It's longer than some of the content on major historical figures, yet this is a subject that I'd be surprised to see mentioned again after a few years have passed. Considering that the subject matter is highly sensitive and concerns a living person I'm surprised that such an article was allowed at all.
epx 9mo ago
In the last 2-3 years, every contribution I made has been reverted by a reviewer or editor, either giving some excuse like lack of references, or none at all. Ceased to contribute to articles, and financially as well.
- baranul 9mo ago
  Wikipedia has a number of notorious and strange editors who have taken it over as if it was their personal kingdom, where they censor and revert at their pleasure. It's their Wikipedia versus for the public. MrOllie is among the most infamous (somehow has over 258,000 edits - WTH) of this type of editor (or sadistic censor), with a number of articles and posts elsewhere on the Internet about him[1][2]. Complaints about him seem to do nothing, as he appears to have support and students of his brand of sadism and censorship. For instance, Remsense (over 97,000 edits). The group that they are part of, backs each other up and gangs up on others, to make sure they'll get their way. [1] https://thomashgreco.medium.com/artificial-intelligence-bots-and-censorship-why-wikipedia-can-no-longer-be-trusted-ded395123ba9 https://thomashgreco.medium.com/artificial-intelligence-bots... [2] https://x.com/docmilanfar/status/1928609721835045047 https://x.com/docmilanfar/status/1928609721835045047
frakkingcylons 9mo ago
I haven’t noticed this.
GuB-42 9mo ago
I didn't notice this, in fact, I still find Wikipedia to be remarkably neutral on controversial topics. It is very explicit about not being a news website, and yet, that's where I find the best coverage for hot topics like the war in Ukraine and Gaza, Black Lives Matter, protests in Hong-Kong, etc... For instance, most western media completely disregard the Russian side of the Ukraine war, not Wikipedia, where you have both points of views shown side by side, as well as international reactions, and most importantly, sources. It is not perfect of course, small topics and non-English Wikipedias usually show more bias, and not just about controversial topics. Even on scientific articles, you may find some guy who considers himself the king of the Estonian Striped Beetle and will not tolerate any other ideas than his, driving away other contributors because they have better things to do than go to war to defend beetle truths.
- richardfeynman 9mo ago
  You are getting bad information. The Wikipedia pages on those specific topics (Ukraine, Gaza, BLM) is known to be have been manipulated by groups of editors acting in coordination to advance political narratives.
  - GuB-42 9mo ago
    Is there a single source that is not manipulated on these topics? For example in Ukraine, it is very obvious that both western mainstream media and Russian mainstream media are little more than propaganda for their respective camps. The good thing with Wikipedia (the English version in particular) is that both sides try to manipulate it, in addition to those who really want to say the truth, so in the end, it is relatively neutral. And if you want to go further, there are citations, which is maybe the most important aspect of Wikipedia compared to traditional media, including encyclopedias. Wikipedia is not perfect, but it does its best to resist manipulation: citations, all activity is recorded and publicly available, etc... Non-English Wikipedias have more bias, because they are smaller and also because unlike the English version that is used worldwide, even by non-English speakers, the non-English ones are often tied to specific countries. For example, I think I remember seeing the Arabic Wikipedia as being explicitly pro-Palestine, I guess the opposite is true for the Hebrew version.
sequoia 9mo ago
Some of this has to do with concerted and long-running campaigns of coordinated editing (against wikipedia rules) to push a one-sided political narrative. Most notably this happened and continues to be done by Israel-eliminationists[0]. Wikipedia eventually acknowledged the problem and banned a couple of the worst offenders[1] but that's a drop in the bucket as far as I'm concerned. I read it less and less these days and don't consult it at all for anything controversial ("controversial" meaning "topics that leftists have strong opinions about"). Sadly, a system like Wikipedia is hard to defend against persistent coordinated attacks by people who have lots of time. 0: https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/ https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/ 1: https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/article-833180 https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/article-833180
zppln 9mo ago
Fully agreed. The Talk pages are a very interesting read these days. I things continue down this path I think Wikipedia will be a lot less relevant in the coming years, at least for current events and things related to the on-going culture war.

amrocha 9mo ago

It’s more likely that you became more radicalized so what used to read as neutral seems partisan now.

zxcvasd 9mo ago
[dead]
FiveOhThree 9mo ago
Is it radicalised to want even a basic premise of neutrality in an encyclopedia? Despite not being particularly political, even I raise an eyebrow when an article opens with "____ is a <negative label>, <negative label>, <negative label> known for <controversial statement>"
- InsideOutSanta 9mo ago
  I've never seen an article like that, other than for people like Epstein, who are primarily famous for their crimes. I just went and checked the pages of some famous people where you might expect this kind of treatment if Wikipedia were indeed biased in the way people seem to think (like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz), and they're not like that. There are a lot of comments in this thread talking about a strong bias in Wikipedia, but I don't see any examples. I have no doubt that there are some articles that are biased, particularly in less popular areas that get less attention, but overall, Wikipedia does a great job maintaining a neutral point of view in its articles. I do get the impression that what people perceive as bias is often simply neutrality. If you think yourself the victim of an evil cabal of your political opponents, then a neutral description of the facts might seem like an attack.
  - FiveOhThree 9mo ago
    To be honest I don't keep a list of examples, I usually raise an eyebrow and move on. It's typically on pages for smaller public figures where you get some extremely questionable descriptions. It's also definitely a thing for contentious topics, a while back I tried to look up some info on the Gaza war and some of the pages were a complete battleground. I feel that there was a time when Wikipedia leaned away from using labels like "terrorist", but their modern policy seems to be that if you can find a bunch of news articles that say so then that's what the article should declare in Wikipedia's voice.
- pavlov 9mo ago
  Please provide an example so we can evaluate what makes even someone as non-political and neutral as you raise an eyebrow.
- Toutouxc 9mo ago
  Can you please provide an example?
- amrocha 9mo ago
  That’s not my perception at all, but if you find an article like that please change it! That’s the beauty of wikipedia after all. I recently made my first contribution and it was a really smooth process.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- PurpleRamen 9mo ago
  > Is it radicalised to want even a basic premise of neutrality in an encyclopedia? Facts are not neutral or "balanced". And your whole phrasing smells of someone who doesn't want to be challenged with facts which are against you worldview, which is pretty much against the whole purpose of Wikipedia. > Despite not being particularly political, even I raise an eyebrow when an article opens with "____ is a <negative label>, <negative label>, <negative label> known for <controversial statement>" Without giving the actual example, there seems nothing wrong with this in general. Could be important, could be overrated. But at least I assume it's true, because wrong claims would be a valid problem.
- burnt-resistor 9mo ago
  I want an improvement upon "Encyclopedia Brittanica". If we have to have governments around the world fund a nonprofit educational equivalent of that, then I'm all for it but we can't keep depending upon a least-common denominator "central public knowledge repository" that's an improperly-managed, easily-manipulated, often incomplete and inaccurate mobacracy fed by largely unknown randos, enough of whom aren't doing so for honest purposes and too many are foolish/crazy/unreliable enough to curate and preserve worthwhile information consistently.
- could-of 9mo ago
  Indeed, neutral point of view is one of the most important principles of Wikipedia [1]. I only recall phrasing like that being used used in very clear-cut cases, like the word "pseudoscience" in the article on homeopathy. If you don't think something is neutral, the guideline "be bold" [2] encourages you to edit it. You don't have to wait for somebody else to. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
bakugo 9mo ago
I mean... this is a very real phenomenon, but probably not in the way you're thinking of. There are many simple statements of fact that, 15 or 20 years ago, were as universally uncontroversial as "the sky is blue", but today are considered radically controversial political opinions, and will get you banned for most online platforms if you dare utter them.
- amrocha 9mo ago
  No, I don’t think that’s true, and I don’t think you could produce a single example. Keep in mind that stating a fact and dogwhistling are not the same thing.
  - bakugo 9mo ago
    Exactly, you don't think it's true because you don't believe they're facts, you've been radicalized into believing they're "dogwhistles" (a term only used by radicalized people, by the way - if you keep hearing dogwhistles, you might just be a dog.)
    - amrocha 9mo ago
      Still not hearing any examples, just ideology!
- could-of 9mo ago
  Can you list some specific examples? Do Wikipedia articles on these topics adhere to the facts, or do they take a political stance?

jdauriemma 9mo ago

Example?

gibspaulding 9mo ago

Friendly reminder that we all have the power to improve this! Become an editor and If you come across a problematic article, you can make improvements, or even just flag it as needing work. I know this is not a small ask, and can feel discouraging if you see more issues than you have time to address or your edits are not accepted, but when you consider the relatively small number of editors and the huge number of readers (not to mention AI’s being built on it) it is likely one of the more significant differences you can make towards improving the greater problem polarization.

FiveOhThree 9mo ago
The impression I've had from trying to contribute in the past has been that some editors will fight tooth and nail to prevent changes to an article they effectively own. The maze of rules and regulations makes it far too easy to simply block changes by dragging everything through protracted resolution processes. Even something as clear-cut as "the provided source doesn't support this claim at all" becomes an uphill struggle to correct. When it comes to anything related to politics this problem is also exaggerated by editors selectively opposing changes based on whether they apply a desired slant to the text.
- zozbot234 9mo ago
  The trick these days is to calmly make your case on the talk page first for anything that might be even slightly controversial, before you attempt any editing. So if someone wants to "own" the article they have to engage on the same terms, or you can just point out the lack of opposition and make the edit yourself.
  - FiveOhThree 9mo ago
    That's the thing though, expecting users to have a discussion over even minor changes is extremely off-putting for most potential editors. I've also noticed that a few of these editors seem to be deliberately abrasive towards new users, perhaps with the hope that they'll break a rule by posting insults in frustration. The moment that happens those editors quickly run to the site administration and try to get said user banned. Wikipedia's policies are increasingly treated as a weapon to beat down dissent rather than a guide on how to contribute positively.

hulitu 9mo ago

> That's probably linked to the increasing polarisation in the US, Not really. The phenomenon exists in other languages Wikipedias. I think it is related to the fact that NGOs that "shape" political discourse and politicians have become "sensible" to the text in Wikipedia pages. It is always good, when you read Wikipedia, to "follow the money", i.e. look at the sources, see if they make sense. In the last 5 years, a lot of online platforms, HN also, are used by state actors to spread propaganda and Wikipedia is perfect for that because it presents itself as a "neutral" source.

zahlman 9mo ago

> I can't be the only one who feels that Wikipedia's quality has really started to go downhill over the past 5 or so years. I've noticed more and more articles which read as ridiculously partisan, usually around subjects with any link to politics or current events. I would say this started over a decade ago. Otherwise I completely agree.

TuringTest 9mo ago
Oh dear, you need to learn about the GamerGate incident which started August 2012. All the extreme division and online manipulation through the collaborative creation of false narratives started right there, with that issue, before contaminating the entire political landscape. It's the Eternal September of our generation, and it's not recognised enough as such. Before that, the internet was a different place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate
- zahlman 9mo ago
  That was 2014, not 2012; and I was trying not to mention it.
  - TuringTest 9mo ago
    You're right, I mistyped it.
- FiveOhThree 9mo ago
  > Gamergate or GamerGate (GG) was a loosely organized misogynistic online harassment campaign motivated by a right-wing backlash against feminism, diversity, and progressivism in video game culture Okay, what the actual fuck? IIRC it was people whining about the absolute state of games journalism in the 2010's.
  - zahlman 9mo ago
    Sigh. Well, now that it's come up.... Fun thing about that. Whenever someone starts going off about how Zoe Quinn was supposedly mistreated and how that supposedly launched a "right-wing backlash against feminism" and a "misogynistic online harassment campaign", quiz them about the "jilted boyfriend" (as they typically put it) who wrote the post that supposedly set everything off. With remarkable consistency, they don't know his name (Eron Gjoni) or anything about his far-left political views, and will refuse to say the name if you ask. They have never read the post and have no idea what it says, and will at most handwave at incredibly-biased third-hand summaries. I'm pretty sure I've even had this happen on HN.

zozbot234 9mo ago

Wikipedia was always insufficiently neutral about political or social topics. At a bare minimum, you need to check whether there are any highlighted controversies in the article talk page.

amiga386 9mo ago
Wikipedia itself knows how much shit it's in. Every ongoing conflict and culture-war issue is a "contentious topic", which is Wikipedia code for "editors are at each others' throats" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#List_of_contentious_topics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#L... They have a giant pile of editors banned from topics until they can play nice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Active_editing_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions... But you do give a great tip: at minimum, check the talk page. If it's longer than the article itself, run away. Some articles are so far gone, even the talk page is locked down like Fort Knox. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide That page even has an FAQ! > Q1: Why does this article state that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, even though this is heavily contested and neither the ICJ nor the ICC have issued a final judgment? > A1: A September 2025 request for comment (RfC) decided to state, in Wikipedia's own voice, that it is a genocide. The current lead is the result of later discussion on the specific wording.
- sequoia 9mo ago
  this is so crazy. How does this accord with wikipedia's NOR & NPV stances? This is a case of "if you abandon your convictions when it's inconvenient, you never really had convictions in the first place."
  - dlubarov 9mo ago
    I would say it absolutely violates the NPOV policy, and it's worth noting that both Wikipedia founders share this view [1] [2]. It's the only thing they've agreed on in many years. Ultimately it's just a numbers game - Wikipedia almost always follows consensus, even when the consensus is to (effectively, without admission) throw neutrality or other rules out the window. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#h-Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales-20251102160300 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#h-Statement_from_Larry_Sanger-Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales-20251104160200 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#...

NoboruWataya 9mo ago

There is pretty much no way this was ever not going to happen, given Wikipedia's position and structure. It is a massive repository of knowledge, that is consulted by millions if not billions of people around the world on a regular basis, that is (in theory) editable by anyone and that has articles on just about every conceivable topic, including many politically charged ones. There must be immense pressure to use it to propagate all kinds of narratives. Given all of that, I think it does as good a job as can be expected of remaining objective, but absolutely you need to be careful when reading articles on politically charged topics (which is true of all media).

beloch 9mo ago

There's a reason why historians tend to view anything more recent than 10-20 years ago as politics. If you don't want to get embroiled in political debates, stick to stuff old enough to be history. There's still politics there, but it's less raw. Wikipedia doesn't restrict itself to topics that are older than ten years ago, so some of their material is necessarily going to be viewed as political. e.g. Wikipedia has a stand-alone page on Elon Musk's Nazi salute[1]. {Edit: It's worth noting here that Wikipedia also maintains separate pages for things like Bill Clinton's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein[3].} This particular page is very interesting because of the sheer amount of political blow-back it's caused for Wikipedia. If you're a Republican, this one page may be the biggest reason you might view Wikipedia as having become "ridiculously partisan". As a direct result of this page, and the refusal to remove or censor it, Musk is now taking aim at Wikipedia and calling for a boycott[2]. He also had his employees produce Grokipedia which, notably, does not include a page on his Nazi salute. Musk may have had a public falling out with Trump, but he is still very much plugged into the Republican party. He's about to throw a lot of money at the mid-term elections. So, naturally, one hand washes the other and Wikipedia is on every good Republican's hit list. The kicker is that a lot of Republicans, who don't like Musk and think he's a Nazi/idiot, are going to feel a lot of Musk-instigated pressure from their own party to target Wikipedia. This is the price Wikipedia pays for including recent events and refusing to bow to demands for censorship. __________________ [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk_salute_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk_salute_controversy [2]https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2025/01/29/why-elon-musk-is-calling-for-a-boycott-of-wikipedia_6737574_13.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2025/01/29/why-elon... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_Bill_Clinton_and_Jeffrey_Epstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_Bill_Clinton_a... Disclosure: I'm Canadian and am neither a Republican or a Democrat.

FiveOhThree 9mo ago
I'm also not American so I'm not well-versed in this topic, but perhaps to raise the obvious: Does Wikipedia really need a page running for thousands of words on Musk allegedly making a Nazi salute? It's longer than some of the content on major historical figures, yet this is a subject that I'd be surprised to see mentioned again after a few years have passed. Considering that the subject matter is highly sensitive and concerns a living person I'm surprised that such an article was allowed at all.

epx 9mo ago

In the last 2-3 years, every contribution I made has been reverted by a reviewer or editor, either giving some excuse like lack of references, or none at all. Ceased to contribute to articles, and financially as well.

baranul 9mo ago
Wikipedia has a number of notorious and strange editors who have taken it over as if it was their personal kingdom, where they censor and revert at their pleasure. It's their Wikipedia versus for the public. MrOllie is among the most infamous (somehow has over 258,000 edits - WTH) of this type of editor (or sadistic censor), with a number of articles and posts elsewhere on the Internet about him[1][2]. Complaints about him seem to do nothing, as he appears to have support and students of his brand of sadism and censorship. For instance, Remsense (over 97,000 edits). The group that they are part of, backs each other up and gangs up on others, to make sure they'll get their way. [1] https://thomashgreco.medium.com/artificial-intelligence-bots-and-censorship-why-wikipedia-can-no-longer-be-trusted-ded395123ba9 https://thomashgreco.medium.com/artificial-intelligence-bots... [2] https://x.com/docmilanfar/status/1928609721835045047 https://x.com/docmilanfar/status/1928609721835045047

frakkingcylons 9mo ago

I haven’t noticed this.

GuB-42 9mo ago

I didn't notice this, in fact, I still find Wikipedia to be remarkably neutral on controversial topics. It is very explicit about not being a news website, and yet, that's where I find the best coverage for hot topics like the war in Ukraine and Gaza, Black Lives Matter, protests in Hong-Kong, etc... For instance, most western media completely disregard the Russian side of the Ukraine war, not Wikipedia, where you have both points of views shown side by side, as well as international reactions, and most importantly, sources. It is not perfect of course, small topics and non-English Wikipedias usually show more bias, and not just about controversial topics. Even on scientific articles, you may find some guy who considers himself the king of the Estonian Striped Beetle and will not tolerate any other ideas than his, driving away other contributors because they have better things to do than go to war to defend beetle truths.

richardfeynman 9mo ago
You are getting bad information. The Wikipedia pages on those specific topics (Ukraine, Gaza, BLM) is known to be have been manipulated by groups of editors acting in coordination to advance political narratives.
- GuB-42 9mo ago
  Is there a single source that is not manipulated on these topics? For example in Ukraine, it is very obvious that both western mainstream media and Russian mainstream media are little more than propaganda for their respective camps. The good thing with Wikipedia (the English version in particular) is that both sides try to manipulate it, in addition to those who really want to say the truth, so in the end, it is relatively neutral. And if you want to go further, there are citations, which is maybe the most important aspect of Wikipedia compared to traditional media, including encyclopedias. Wikipedia is not perfect, but it does its best to resist manipulation: citations, all activity is recorded and publicly available, etc... Non-English Wikipedias have more bias, because they are smaller and also because unlike the English version that is used worldwide, even by non-English speakers, the non-English ones are often tied to specific countries. For example, I think I remember seeing the Arabic Wikipedia as being explicitly pro-Palestine, I guess the opposite is true for the Hebrew version.

sequoia 9mo ago

Some of this has to do with concerted and long-running campaigns of coordinated editing (against wikipedia rules) to push a one-sided political narrative. Most notably this happened and continues to be done by Israel-eliminationists[0]. Wikipedia eventually acknowledged the problem and banned a couple of the worst offenders[1] but that's a drop in the bucket as far as I'm concerned. I read it less and less these days and don't consult it at all for anything controversial ("controversial" meaning "topics that leftists have strong opinions about"). Sadly, a system like Wikipedia is hard to defend against persistent coordinated attacks by people who have lots of time. 0: https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/ https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/ 1: https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/article-833180 https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/article-833180

zppln 9mo ago

Fully agreed. The Talk pages are a very interesting read these days. I things continue down this path I think Wikipedia will be a lot less relevant in the coming years, at least for current events and things related to the on-going culture war.