Wikipedia

Wikipedia is both hit and miss. Most articles are pretty good, but there's a leftist bias amongst too many articles. Wikipedia is both hit and miss, with a lot more hits than misses. I reference it a lot, because most articles are pretty good or good enough. But a few are very biased, and virtually all bias leans far left. Usually it's more lies of omission and not offering both sides. So they are referencable, but the most interesting stuff is often omitted, or in the talk section. ℹ️ Info           ~ Aristotle Sabouni Created: 2017-05-15

❝ Most of Earth: “The MSM is biased.” Wikipedia: “Cite MSM source to confirm this claim.” ❞ ~ Elon Musk ℹ️ Twitter • Wikipedia has a non-trivial left-wing bias.

Science is skepticism. Wikipedia is consensus.. So don't let a wikipedia article lull you into an "Appeal to Authority" or "Appeal to Celebrity" fallacy. While they usually only lie by omission or misdirection, they aren't called Wokepedia for nothing.

Wikipedia has millions of articles, across hundreds of thousands of topics -- and each topic is a community (clique) of editors, and herd-think rules most of them. Some (most?) arefine. But if one clique is bad, that whole area can be bad; they won't allow counter-factual that disagree with their agenda. And there are bad (biased) areas of wikipedia. Especially in History, Science, Politics, and anything that's controversial. And everything can be political and controversial to folks that focus on any topic.

For example History is overloaded with liberal Historians. I don't think anyone has figured out why, but many of the most vocal tend to lean that way. So if you just have a random sampling of Historians, they're going to pool to the left, and spin things "their way". If you take a sub-sampling of them, the ones most likely to clique up and drive out the others, give their work away for free, or do so only for the benefit of programming the minds of the next generation, that may be even worse.

And this isn't just hypothetical. I watched a whole exchange in the Talk Section on whether Fascism was a right wing philosophy. (It pretty much cured me of the delusion that Wikipedia is to be completely trusted and is the paragon of non-biased).

Isn't fascism a right wing ideology?

           Main article: Isn't fascism a right wing ideology?

In Europe and America, left and right are reversed. Conservatism in Europe means going back to Monarchies (Authoriatian), in Ameirca it means going back to less governemnt (Libertarian). By European standards, Fascism, Socialism and Communism are right wing. By American standards, they are left wing. These terms don't translate as well as some people think.

There was a lot more evidence in how they handled issues like McCarthy (Joe not Jennie), Abraham Lincoln, Civil War was about Slavery, FDR, "the Southern Strategy" and a few other topics I know quite a bit about. I've tried to contribute, and witnessed others doing the same, and a few editors in an area are more than happy to bully and spin the others edits, or block them from valuable contributions, with no attempts to balance the side of the truth they find "distasteful".

Even the standards are based on an appeal to popularity. You have to find citations of every issue that the "editors" don't like (even if it's commonly known). But liberal editors in Newspapers tend to not cite things that are common or they don't find popular. And you get into another game where book citations can get far more scrutiny, especially if the popular Historians/writers found their views controversial. Thus even citations are a filter, both in requiring more and better for controversial issues, while being able to snub them more for the hegemony of the clique.

The sciences aren't any more pure either. You get near anything to do with Global Warming, Climate Change and that area, and it's contentious as fuck, with a bunch of little fascists running the area, and there's a definite double-standard on quality. Throw out a baseless claim supporting it, and readily accepted. Someone offers examples of where that nugget of information was criticized or disproven, and you need a mountain of evidence and rather that offer that, they'll probably just remove the offending original factoid (claiming that the evidence against it, while finally enough, is just a distraction from the bigger argument, so remove them both). Then replace the original with an equally sketchy citation or factoid, that doesn't have as many citations against it... yet. There's not a lot of balance in those areas, because of the community (clique) that controls them. Think like us, or we'll henpeck you to death. Any contrarian thinkers will eventually give up and go elsewhere.

Examples

Title	Summary
2000 Mules	Wikipedia won't create a separate entry for it, and the only blurbs they allow are negative and Fake Fact Checks by far left institutions like the AP. Supposition that it's not proof is OK. Supposition that it shows suspicious activity that should be investigated is blocked as wild conspiracy theory.
2020 Dominion	Dominion Voting System was rejected by Texas, Ohio and CISA issued a warning because of security failures. When a disputed election comes up, the states that approved Dominion are getting more a self caused mess than the ones that rejected it. Democrats Amy Klobucher, Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wydden admitted worries that Dominion was potentially a threat for voter fraud/manipulation during the Democrat Primaries. Dominion was caught misappropriating 3,000 votes from Trump and giving them to Biden in Antim County Michigan. Yet it was used in 24 states, and 5 of 6 disputed ones. Smartmatic and others were only a little better and brought up issues of their own.
70s SF Democrats	In the late 70's, Dan White killed Harvey Milk and George Moscone for criminal abuse and corruption and colluding with Jim Jones to corrupt elections. Since then, the left has rewritten history, and turned felons into martyrs.
Breitbart Blacklisted by Wikipedia (2018)	You don't have to like Breitbart, to admit that it's a news source that's broken some pretty good scoops, and done some serious investigative journalism. They are biased, but so is CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, NYT, WaPo and HuffPo, that are all tolerated as sources. Pick a standard, and ban everyone based on that. But you don't get to have arbitrary standards.
Cultural Marxism	Cultural Marxism is a branch of Marxist ideology formulated by the Frankfurt School, which uses political correctness to undermine/politicize all traditional institutions and social norms; Art, Books, Film/TV, Education, Science, Sexuality, Religion, History, Patriotism (National Sovereignty), and so on
David French/Flip-Flops	French is Flip Flops on key issues like support for Trump, opposition to Gay Marriage, or whatever displeases (or is in the way of advancement) in the leftist publications he is working for. I generally don't mind growth / revision of views. But his flip flops don't smell like that, they feel more like moral sacrifices for career/social advancement.
Fake Facts	"Facts" that aren't but people believe anyways, either through ignorance, self delusion or deception. The worst are ones that people heard from their authorities, but never questioned - confirmation bias makes them especially resistant to growth. But how we react to new information defines what kind of person we are. Do we validate our assumptions, or just remain ignorant/progressive?
Fascism	Fascism the left believes that while the National Socialists Workers Party contained Socialism in the name, thought and deed, they all came from Socialism, Stalin thought they were socialists, that doesn't mean they were real socialists. (The no true Scotsman fallacy). And if they weren't Socialists, then they must be "right wing".
Fucking her way to the top	Kamala Harris failed the bar when she first took it, and only got to the top, by being on the bottom (being Corrupt Mayor Willie Brown's mistress, while he was still married). While I don't have a problem with women (or men) taking advantage of their "network" to get ahead, it matters if it was above board, and who the partner was.
Jemele Hill	Racist ESPN reporter that was finally fired for questioning the Cowboys fans. It wasn't multiple years of racist posts, or lies about the President.
John Stossel	a Libertarian commentator that was forced out of ABC, and off of much of mainstream media for his views. Not because he was wrong, or didn't have a great following, but because the left doesn't appreciate truths being told that prove/demonstrate their biases.
Mohammad Mosaddegh	Wikipedia repeats the fallacies with the facts burried in their article improperly named "1953 Iranian coup d'état", and implies that Mosaddegh was "democratically elected", or illegally deposed coup d'état, and the "Historians" definitely bury the truth about Mosaddegh being a Soviet Sponsored Marxist Dictator.
Music Genres	The left's version of American Music is that blacks gave it to white America. That would imply blacks are all racists, and that while Whites artists borrowed from Black artists, black artists did none of that and remained pure influencers (and not influenced). In the real world, cultures influence back and forth, and that makes both sides better. Music in America is no different.
New World Order	The far left (and Wikipedia) claims the New World Order (NWO) is just a Conspiracy Theory about a secretly emerging totalitarian world government. In the real world, there are many public and private organizations of elites openly colaborating to create a new authoritarian world governments; U.N., EU, Davos, WEF (World Economic Forum) and so on.
NewsGuard	Fake FactChecker that offer red/green light on whole institutions (based on politics), instead of individual articles. It plugs into browsers and offers "FakeNews" indicator, based on establishment (and leftism), not based on the actual articles contents or quality. The same story can flip colors based on which aggregator is reporting it, whether it is correct or not.
Proud Boys	FakeNews & Wikipedia claim that Black Lead Proud Boys is a White Supremacist organization... ignore the Gay, Latino, Asian members. Any attempts to fix it, will be blocked. It's not that the nuance is beyond them, it's that they won't tolerate anyone adding it, because it doesn't fit the leftist editors agenda.
Red Flag Laws	Red Flag laws sound reasonable (flag people that are threats, and take their guns away temporarily), but they aren't implemented that way. Everywhere it's been tried, it's been abused and gotten people killed. If you can't implement it in a way where it wouldn't be abused by other individuals or government, then how is it reasonable?
Red Flag Laws	You can get a whiff of the bias at Wikipedia if you read the section on Red Flag Laws (especially Talk, now burried). Those opposed to Red Flag Laws offered information about Gary Willis (killed while enforcing Reg Flag Laws). Fee articles explaining the consequences/tradeoffs. Examples of abuse of those laws section was proposed and rejected. All was blocked/suppressed under various excuses. Suppressing counterbalance is propaganda.
Roy Moore Manipulation/censorship (2017)	While I'm no fan of Roy Moore, anyone that didn't support the far left narrative on Wikipedia was attacked, then banned for defending themselves. Simple facts like pointing out that the age of consent is 16 in Alabama, so even if he had perved on a teenager, it wasn't a crime. Offering context that doesn't fit the far-left narrative is grounds for removal.
Sarah Jeong - Wikipedia Entry (2018)	As Christina Sommers points out, you can look on Wikipedia talk page for Sarah Jeong (known racist and NYT writer), and that stuff is being actively suppressed. Facts like "Sarah incited controversy for a series of insensitive tweets" gets blocked while debate is going on. Eventually, some of it gets sorted out, but it's hard to add needed context to left wing narratives/people.
Tea Party	The railroading of the TeaParty is a great example of FakeNews, either through gross incompetence or more likely leftist malice. It started simply as bipartisan anti-tax, anti-spending, and anti-debt. But they got presented as racist, hyper-religious, far-right extremists, not to mention mocking them as "tea baggers" (testicle suckers).
The Southern Strategy	Wikipedia repeats the far-left Alt-history version of "The Southern Strategy, and censored all the conservative voices and references. So like in many parts of Wikipedia, the "neutral" view, suppresses the conflicting perceptions on what happened, why, and the unflattering truths of the Democrats during this era.
Thursday Night Massacre	Elon said "No Doxxing". Journos tested him by doxxing. Got 18 hour suspension, and lost their shit. How dare rules apply to them? Wikipedia snowflakes wrote a 3,000 word article whining about it, or relaying all the far left whining about it, without much in the way of counterbalance.
Warsaw Death Camp	For over 15 years, false claims that thousands of Poles were gassed to death in Warsaw in a widespread Holocaust distortion operation by Polish nationalists. This isn't denying the Holocaust happened, it just didn't happen there -- despite what you read on Wikipedia. The article has since been fixed/improved, but it took 15 years of fighting.
Wikipedia Editor banned for allowing questioning the Russian Hacker Narrative (2017)	Am AP report mentioned that Russians were hacking anyone who opposed Russian interest (not just Hillary Clinton), it started a discussion over purging anything that didn't fit the "Russians hacked 2016 election because they wanted Trump to win" narrative. An editor was attacked and banned for trying to defend a little balance and stop the censoring of counter-points.
Wikipedia Recession	For 50 years, the agreed upon definition of a recession (in the U.S.) was 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. Then Biden re-invented the word recession, and there was a revision war to fit/fight the new narrative, until Wikipedia locked it down. The left will do anything to keep the left from looking bad. This is very Orwellian.
Wikipedia co-founder on bias	Wikipedia Co-founder (Larry Sanger) admits that Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point of View) is long dead and forgotten.
Wikipedia editors downplayed Antifa’s violence (2017)	Left-wing editors removed or minimized mentions of Antifas violent history. The article’s only mentions of violence, far left activism, or that government agencies characterized them as a terrorist group were in the headlines of sources, but they added material portraying Antifa as victims of smear campaign (done by editors supported Antifa on their profile pages).
Wikipedia editors take money to alter stories (2019)	The facade that Wikipedia is non-partisanism is crushed when their editors (like Ed Sussman) get caught altering the tone/content for cash. (Pay-for-whitewash). And the list of payers is a whose who of leftist organizations: Facebook, NBC, Nextdoor, Axios, CNN, Intel, and so on.
Wikipedia on Trickle Down Economics	An example of Wikipedia's embarrassingly bad bias, poor writing, and misleading summary is the Wikipedia entry on Trickle Down Economics. It looks like it was written by a left wing polemic rather than anyone interested in economics or facts (or teaching). The Talk Section has a few interesting PoV's.
Wikipedia/Burying CNN Blackmail Controversy (2017)	There was a page created on CNN’s blackmail controversy (where CNN threatened to dox someone). Other editors stepped in, and buried the lede and much of the factual content, not because of standards, but because it made CNN look bad (by telling the truth). Efforts to restore the material were met with a wall of double standards or outright censorship.
Wikipedia/James Damore evidence tampering (2017)	When Google employee James Damore’s memo on the company’s diversity programs and treatment of conservative views went viral, editors on Wikipedia began removing reliably-sourced parts of articles he cited to support his positions. When the truth doesn't favor the left, the left tries to erase the truth from History, like the little Stalins they are.
Wikipedia/UC Berkeley Prof trades wiki-bias for grades (2017)	UC Berkeley instructor Michel Gelobter launched a course whose course description gave students grades based on their willingness to advance an “environmental justice” narrative, by altering Wikipedia pages. Slurring President Trump with falsehoods, upped the grade. Eventually, Wikipedia editors did delete some of the more egregious additions, but many remained.
YETI Coolers	YETI Coolers cut off ties to the NRA Foundation (the shooting sports division), but wouldn't say why (coincidentally timed with Delta and REI dropping the NRA after school shooting). The NRA's open letter, lead to a backlash amongst shooting enthusiasts. Yeti claimed NRA/shooters misunderstood. The NRA's reply to that sounded a lot like: {cough:bullshit!}.

Conclusion

So the point is NOT that Wikipedia is bad. I think it's a rather great resource, if you go in with an eye towards skepticism, you recognize it's incompleteness on just about every topic (except really popular ones), and you accept that much of it is written by herd think and consensus views.

You're not going to get a lot of original thought and worse, the less popular views and less savory side of History is often a bit white-washed by the community. And the same with Science. Science is about Skepticism, Wikipedia is about Hedgemony and Popularity (of the area). So if it's a really popular view, they'll cover it well, if it's a dynamic area of Science, with challenges and new info coming in, except that most of that will be suppressed for what the clique wants.

---

🔗 More

Organizations Organizations that I felt the need to comment on (more often on the negs than the positives). But there's good/bad in all.

Media Organizations News, Newspapers, Websites, Radio, TV, and organizations that convey information the public.

Bias Disproportionate weight for or against a person, place, idea or thing, usually ignoring evidence against.

TBD List all the articles that have work to be done on them.

🔗 Links

• https://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia
• https://www.heartland.org/topics/infotech-telecom/Wikipedia/index.html

Tags: Organizations  Media  Bias  TBD