Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ideological bias on Wikipedia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ideological bias on Wikipedia at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 May 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Wikipedia High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Logic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship was copied or moved into Ideological bias on Wikipedia with this edit on 05:08, 22 May 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Reliability of Wikipedia#Liberal bias was copied or moved into Ideological bias on Wikipedia with this edit on 05:08, 22 May 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Hava Mendelle (November 2, 2023). "Wikipedia at war". Spectator Australia. Retrieved November 2, 2023. Wikipedia itself notes its journalistic bias here stating that sources are predominately derived from liberal news sources.

Wikimedia foundation bias

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for political topics. Per WP:TALK#USE, "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." If anyone would like to suggest content to be added to this article, please present the suggestions alongside reliable sources that support the claims. — Newslinger talk 21:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unlike Wikipedia, the Wikimedia foundation is partisan, and there have been many criticisms made of their ideological positions and claims that those positions may leak into Wikipedia. (For example, see here.) Should this be mentioned in this article? While indirect, it's a valid concern, and it reflects poorly on Wikipedia if it appears to be ignoring the existence of complaints like this. KingSupernova (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people, including me, don't use Twitter/X, so that link is of no use to us. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link is to a discussion involving unqualified people presenting their own conclusions based on a misrepresentation of sources.

For example, one writer claims that the Wikimedia Foundation is "partisan" because it supports a program to increase the participation of underrepresented minorities in Wikipedia.

One way to become better informed is to stop reading X posts. It attracts a lot of cranks who can't get their views published elsewhere. TFD (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think creative freedom should remain the cornerstone of Wikipedia.

Done Zemant (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they did choose and mandate a side on the US culture war on pronouns (basing on biological sex vs. declared gender). North8000 (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I edited to add "and mandate" simultaneous with Slatersteven's post. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How could they not? Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apathy. It's remarkably effortless. GMG ^talk 14:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to conduct the culture war here, just noting that they picked and mandated one side. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vague assertions are not helpful. Assuming they decided to allow no binary genders, would not deciding to only allow binary genders have also been "picking a side"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not about that. Just about words. Deciding whether or not one can use them to refer to biological sex. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had may fair share of disagreements with the Foundation, but yer gonna need something with more meat than a tweet to make your case. GMG ^talk 15:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hear they're even against slavery. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has not picked one side on using gender pronouns. Instead, it follows the usage in reliable sources. See for example "‘He,’ ‘She,’ ‘They’ and Us" (NYT, Raillan Brooks April 5, 2017)

So the actual bias is toward reliable sources, whether using gender pronouns, or discussing evolution or climate change.

TFD (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say mandating that people not use the N-word when referencing others is part of a "US culture war"? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Liberal bias

How is this white washed? It is supported by Harvard studies that wikipedia overall has a left bias. The allowed news sources a lot of them are very left wing like vox, slate. Yet there is nothing to balance this. Its shameful really.

A paper from harvard researchers found left wint editors are more active and partisan here. These are facts. 98.217.161.235 (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]