5 Times Studies Proved Wikipedia’s Left-Wing Bias

.......”Examining all areas together similarly found editors favoring a right-leaning perspective were six times more likely to be sanctioned than those favoring the left-leaning perspective. The academics suggested administrative bias could explain right-leaning sources being disfavored on Wikipedia.

Site co-founder Larry Sanger this year examined bias in several articles when declaring Wikipedia had abandoned neutrality. He noted President Barack Obama’s article mentioned none of his Administration’s scandals, but scandals on President Trump’s page were extensively documented. The sourcing bias identified in several analyses contributes to such content bias as with articles on Antifa and Black Lives Matter. One reason for Wikipedia’s sourcing bias is right-wing media being subject to a years-long purge invoking policies on “verifiability” and “reliable” sourcing. Many editors cite combating “fake news” to justify the purge, a narrative pushed by the site’s owners following advice from a Clinton-tied public relations firm.

In a communications audit by the firm Minassian Media, they noted Wikipedia was usually covered favorably, except when the site’s reliability was the subject of the story. Pushing the site as a challenge to “opinionated news” citing the 2016 election was how the firm recommended improving Wikipedia’s reputation. The effort has been an apparent success with many corporate media outlets praising the site, even on its handling of political articles where edits favored left-wing views. Companies in Big Tech and organizations such as the World Health Organization have also seized on claims of Wikipedia’s reliability to incorporate the site into their efforts against “misinformation” online.

Demonstrated left-wing bias indicates how harmful Wikipedia’s influence can become. Previous studies have already shown Wikipedia can shape scientific literature and economic behaviors with some studies raising whether it can influence elections”......



Read more: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/11/28/5-times-studies-proved-wikipedias-left-wing-bias/





Wilipedia and Rational Wiki are far left tools. They are radically biased in favor of the left. Their lack of fairness and poor treatment of conservatives is plain for any rational and objective observer to see. They and their allies in the fact checking industry have become content control and censorship tools of the gate keepers social and some news media sites have used to limit conservatives activities on their platforms.

 

Reality has a left-wing bias.

 

The conspiracy of the msm and fact checking gate keepers to try to limit the reach and expression of newer alternative media is a clear and present danger to the free exchange of a wide variety of competing ideas.

 

Actually it doesn’t. Keep on telling yourself that though if it helps you to sleep better at night.

 

Reality is Bruce Jenner will never be a woman, but the left ignores the reality they told to ignore.

 

Wikipedia is a great starting point for research, but its a terrible 'standalone' source.

 

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

 

Well said and Exactly.

Wiki doesn't deal in Pizzagate and Alex Jones.

 

As long as they are liberal. A conservative editor will be quickly banned.

 

Colleges won’t even let you use it as a source in writing a term paper on a subject....

 

Wikipedia? Really? Okay, when are we gonna determine the political lean of Dominos Pizza? I'm eating one now. I wouldn't want to swallow a piece of Trump Pepperoni.

My god people. Nobody cares about any study done on the political lean of Wikipedia. Don't like it? Don't use it.

The US women's soccer team, and now Wikipedia. That's some pretty weak argumentation.

 

Oh, bull.

 

I spoke too soon.

The US women's soccer team, Wikipedia and Bruce Jenner. Lock 'em up!!! And hide yer daughters. Grab your guns, too.

 

Nonsense

 

Your sig says you took a long time to research the validity of your arguments. Please share them with us now regarding this post.

 

Left wing bias is to them reality.

 

LOL, I bet you even believe that canard.

 

This comes as ZERO surprise, most of the media and the internet is controlled by leftist...."We must control what the people see and hear and thus manipulate their perceptions".

 

With good cause. But that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't use it as a means to find other more reliable sources. Like I said, its just a good starting point.

 

True enough. I’d rather use Conservapedia to start from though.

 

Then why does the right continually fight against the facts?

 

How dare they fact check!

 

You missed the other part. Where I say that I only do my research, and not yours. If you, or the author of the OP want to claim that Wikipedia, a highly regarded website for their concern for accuracy, is "biased", then you need to do your own research and prove it. And this doesn't mean anything like this idiotic Breitbart article. It means proving that it's wrong.

Now that you have a lesson on how research and rational thinking works, I hope to be seeing either your evidence that Wikipedia confirms left wing concepts, not because they are real, but because they are "biased". That is my hope, but my expectation is that neither of you will support the claim.

 

The Earth is less than 6,000 years old - Conservative viewpoint of geology.
The Earth is older than 6,000 years - everyone else.

Is it a wonder that Wiki is not "right" leaning?

 

I frequently read random stuff on Wikipedia related to history or natural sciences and can’t say I came across much propaganda.
Wikipedia is a great reference tool for info about non-political things. But anyone reading it to get info about current events, or things that are contested by politicians should always be aware of the fact that anyone can make changes to these articles and you see only the latest version of multiple partisan edits.