Changes

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)

Revision as of 18:55, August 13, 2019

12 bytes added , 18:55, August 13, 2019

copy-edit

Line 1: Line 1:

This list covers a wide range of bias in the English Wikipedia website. Although Wikipedia claims to have credibility because anyone can edit it, in fact, the website represents the viewpoint of its most strident and persistent editors. On [[Christmas]] Day 2016 (NYC time), Wikipedia's entry for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Maryanne Trump Barry prominently and falsely declared: "Her younger brother is loan shark and liar [[Donald Trump]],"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryanne_Trump_Barry&type=revision&diff=756673396&oldid=756136858</ref> something which remained for an unusually-long forty-eight minutes before it was corrected.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryanne_Trump_Barry&diff=prev&oldid=756677726</ref>

−

Wikipedia is also heavily influenced by paid public relations professionals who do not disclose their conflicts of interest. This list together with the sublists linked below provide a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.

+

Wikipedia is also heavily influenced by paid public relations professionals who do not disclose their conflicts of interest. This list, together with the sublists linked below, provide a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.

A cabal of editors exists who work together to bias articles and to hide embarrassing facts about left-wing political figures, while at the same time smearing conservatives. Scandals involving left-wing personalities are labeled "conspiracy theories", for example, ''Spygate'' (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) or "controversies" such as ''IRS targeting controversy'' or ''Hillary Clinton email controversy''.

Line 14: Line 14:

<blockquote>"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"<ref name="frontpagemag.com"/></blockquote>

−

The project was initiated by [[Atheism|atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref> An irony of ~~internet~~ history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref name="wnd.com">http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref name="wnd.com"/> In December 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref name="tektonticker.blogspot.com">http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref> Although Wales "made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker," he has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite web|url=https://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>

+

The project was initiated by [[Atheism|atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref> An irony of Internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref name="wnd.com">http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref name="wnd.com"/> In December 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref name="tektonticker.blogspot.com">http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref> Although Wales "made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker," he has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite web|url=https://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>

Co-founder Larry Sanger, who left the site, later acknowledged that Wikipedia does not follow its own neutrality policy.<ref>[https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-sanger-co-founder-of-wikipedia-agrees-that-it-does-not-follow-its-own-neutrality-policy/ Uncommon Descent, December 1, 2016, Posted by Barry Arrington]</ref>

Line 27: Line 27:

=== Abortion ===

See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion]]

−

[[Image:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Benazir Bhutto]]

+

[[Image:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Benazir Bhutto]]]]

−

#Wikipedia's articles on [[genocide]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide&oldid=744025805</ref> [[murder]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder&oldid=744013669</ref> and [[homicide]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homicide&oldid=744087425</ref> have absolutely no mention of abortion,<ref>With the exception of a single mention in the article "Murder" which states that the ~~availibility~~ of abortion may affect murder rates of born humans.</ref> even though it has killed more people than any other genocide.<ref>Ertelt, Steve (November 6, 2012). [https://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/06/abortion-has-destroyed-117-million-people-in-the-united-states/ Abortion Has Destroyed 117 Million People in the United States]. ''LifeNews.com''. Retrieved October 12, 2016.</ref>

+

#Wikipedia's articles on [[genocide]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide&oldid=744025805</ref> [[murder]],<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder&oldid=744013669</ref> and [[homicide]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homicide&oldid=744087425</ref> have absolutely no mention of abortion,<ref>With the exception of a single mention in the article "Murder", which states that the availability of abortion may affect murder rates of born humans.</ref> even though it has killed more people than any other genocide.<ref>Ertelt, Steve (November 6, 2012). [https://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/06/abortion-has-destroyed-117-million-people-in-the-united-states/ Abortion Has Destroyed 117 Million People in the United States]. ''LifeNews.com''. Retrieved October 12, 2016.</ref>

−

#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence</ref> but there is no article about pro-abortion violence. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Abortion debate" article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence</ref> Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&oldid=298226073</ref> For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ...the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissingly began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."

+

#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence</ref> but there is no article about pro-abortion violence. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Abortion debate" article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence</ref> Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&oldid=298226073</ref> For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ... the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissingly began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."

# [[Wikipedia]] claimed that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>

===Religion===

−

[[File:Omar_Mateen.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Omar Mateen]]

+

[[File:Omar_Mateen.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Omar Mateen]]]]

====Anti-Christianity====

See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity]]

Line 75: Line 75:

===Ethnic and racial bias===

See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethnic and racial]]

−

# In 2008, two 15-year-old students wanted to harass a third student named "Azid", so they edited a Wikipedia article on Korma (an Eastern food) to add Azid as a synonym for the dish.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=491479704 May 8, 2012</ref> This meaning was then added to hundreds of ~~web~~ postings about mid-eastern cooking. On July 16, 2014, one of the students confessed his stunt on Reddit,<ref>http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2awfib/its_time_for_the_truth_to_come_out/ July 16, 2014</ref> but so many Azid references copied from Wikipedia had emerged in the meantime that Wikipedia did not delete the vandalism as untrue<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5028</ref> until four months later.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korma&diff=prev&oldid=633412945</ref>

+

# In 2008, two 15-year-old students wanted to harass a third student named "Azid", so they edited a Wikipedia article on Korma (an Eastern food) to add Azid as a synonym for the dish.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=491479704 May 8, 2012</ref> This meaning was then added to hundreds of Web postings about mid-eastern cooking. On July 16, 2014, one of the students confessed his stunt on Reddit,<ref>http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2awfib/its_time_for_the_truth_to_come_out/ July 16, 2014</ref> but so many Azid references copied from Wikipedia had emerged in the meantime that Wikipedia did not delete the vandalism as untrue<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5028</ref> until four months later.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korma&diff=prev&oldid=633412945</ref>

# For over a year, the article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_A._Wilson_High_School Glen A. Wilson High School] contained threats against an Asian student and made ethnic slurs against the school's primarily Asian badminton team.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</ref>

#Wikipedia has developed a series of history articles outlining the struggles of Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, the LGBT community, Asians and blacks against discrimination and the Ku Klux Klan. These articles are now called "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29 African-American Civil Rights Movement]" despite being formerly called "American Civil Rights Movement."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29/Archive_1#Name_of_this_article.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Why_.22African.22-American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Proposed_Move</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#Name_change</ref>

Line 100: Line 100:

===Internet policies===

−

#The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) claims to have a policy against ~~internet~~ censorship. Yet, the WMF has entered into a partnership with the [[Saudi Telecom Company]] (STC) to provide Wikipedia to mobile phone subscribers, prompting questions about the potential conflict over censorship.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-October/122320.html</ref> Meanwhile, the English Wikipedia has an article entitled "List of Wikipedia articles censored in Saudi Arabia".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=505551894</ref>

+

#The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) claims to have a policy against Internet censorship. Yet, the WMF has entered into a partnership with the [[Saudi Telecom Company]] (STC) to provide Wikipedia to mobile phone subscribers, prompting questions about the potential conflict over censorship.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-October/122320.html</ref> Meanwhile, the English Wikipedia has an article entitled "List of Wikipedia articles censored in Saudi Arabia".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=505551894</ref>

#Wikipedia engages in censorship of points of view that they disapprove of. In February 2017, Wikipedia (supported by Wikimedia) decided it would no longer accept ''[[The Daily Mail]]'', a right-wing newspaper based in the [[United Kingdom]], as a reliable source.<ref>Panis, Thomas (February 17, 2017). [https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_wikipedia_purge.html The Wikipedia Purge]. ''American Thinker''. Retrieved February 25, 2017.</ref> Wikipedia also discriminates against other conservative or right-wing sources, such as [[Breitbart.com|Breitbart News]], despite allowing [[liberal media]] sources that promote [[fake news]] as sources. Additionally, using sources even like the Washington Times or the Daily Caller is discouraged at the least.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Washington_Times_column_RS.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_209#Is_the_Washington_Times_an_acceptable_source_for_statements_of_face_related_to_student_protesters.2Fblack_lives_matter.2FMilo_Yiannopoulos.3F</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#LA_Times_legitimately_journalistic_WashTimes_is_like_FOx_News</ref> Even citing Fox News is discouraged. Due to its anti-conservative sourcing policies, Wikipedia has an inherent left-wing bias as the left-wing mainstream media sources (along with blatantly left-wing publications that are not challenged, unlike conservative outlets) [[Fake news|are considered factually correct and the most reliable]] in the eyes of Wikipedia editors.

Line 215: Line 215:

[[File:Girls Netball Team.jpg|thumb|right|250 px|An editor who was never in Malawi says this is a photo of a Malawian netball team. An edit war ensued.]]

−

Another bias is from "show and tell." Some Wikipedia editors have not outgrown their need to show off what they have found on the ~~internet~~. Again using the obscure sport of netball as an example, the editor found a photo posted on flickr that was labeled, "The Girls Netball Team"<ref>https://www.flickr.com/photos/51132506@N00/1954358144</ref> even though it did not show anyone playing netball. The editor then captioned the photo, "A Malawian netball team" and placed it alongside a few other obscure facts to create a Malawi section of the netball article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&oldid=420915334</ref> So how can the reader trust that the people in the photograph are really in Malawi and that they really play netball?<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_Africa#Malawi_image</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/Archive_3#Should_image_of_Netball_players_not_playing_be_used</ref> Adding photos to articles is the most visible form of the "show and tell" syndrome. The need to "show and tell" can also result in including random, obscure facts and data in an article. For example, an editor can find a data source from years ago, but if the data is included in the article without proper emphasis of the date, it creates the implication that the data ~~remains~~ true today.<ref>E.g., {{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_Brunei&diff=502678275&oldid=502670120|title=Netball in Brunei|date=July 16, 2012}}</ref>

+

Another bias is from "show and tell." Some Wikipedia editors have not outgrown their need to show off what they have found on the Internet. Again using the obscure sport of netball as an example, the editor found a photo posted on flickr that was labeled, "The Girls Netball Team"<ref>https://www.flickr.com/photos/51132506@N00/1954358144</ref> even though it did not show anyone playing netball. The editor then captioned the photo, "A Malawian netball team" and placed it alongside a few other obscure facts to create a Malawi section of the netball article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&oldid=420915334</ref> So how can the reader trust that the people in the photograph are really in Malawi and that they really play netball?<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_Africa#Malawi_image</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/Archive_3#Should_image_of_Netball_players_not_playing_be_used</ref> Adding photos to articles is the most visible form of the "show and tell" syndrome. The need to "show and tell" can also result in including random, obscure facts and data in an article. For example, an editor can find a data source from years ago, but if the data are included in the article without proper emphasis of the date, it creates the implication that the data remain true today.<ref>E.g., {{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_Brunei&diff=502678275&oldid=502670120|title=Netball in Brunei|date=July 16, 2012}}</ref>

−

Errors and bias can be introduced by robotic submissions. For example, many Wikipedia articles about populated places in the United States were created by robots using 2000 census data. A standard paragraph on demographics ~~which~~ included 2000 data was automatically included in each article. Wikipedia has not been able to program a robot to update all of those statistics, so most articles about places in the United States do not have more recent data from the 2010 census. Robots tagged many Wikipedia articles that had an article name in common with those in an early edition of ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' as having that book as a ~~source—even~~ if nothing in the article was based on that book, and no human checked if the Wikipedia article was consistent with the Britannica article.

+

Errors and bias can be introduced by robotic submissions. For example, many Wikipedia articles about populated places in the United States were created by robots using 2000 census data. A standard paragraph on demographics that included 2000 data was automatically included in each article. Wikipedia has not been able to program a robot to update all of those statistics, so most articles about places in the United States do not have more recent data from the 2010 census. Robots tagged many Wikipedia articles that had an article name in common with those in an early edition of ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' as having that book as a source, even if nothing in the article was based on that book, and no human checked if the Wikipedia article was consistent with the Encyclopædia Britannica article.

−

Another level of error and bias comes from Wikipedia's reliance on poorly-trained volunteers instead of paid professionals. For example, someone proposed that a copyrighted photo of Joseph Stalin taken by [[Margaret Bourke-White]] be deleted in 2009.<ref>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpg</ref> It was kept because someone with a ~~gmail~~ account sent permission claiming to be her son. She died without children<ref>http://womenshistory.about.com/od/margaretbourkewhite/a/Margaret-Bourke-White.htm</ref> and the photo's ~~copyrighted~~ actually belonged to Time, Inc. but the mistake was not detected until 2012.

+

Another level of error and bias comes from Wikipedia's reliance on poorly-trained volunteers instead of paid professionals. For example, someone proposed that a copyrighted photo of Joseph Stalin taken by [[Margaret Bourke-White]] be deleted in 2009.<ref>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpg</ref> It was kept, because someone with a Gmail account sent permission claiming to be her son. She died without children<ref>http://womenshistory.about.com/od/margaretbourkewhite/a/Margaret-Bourke-White.htm</ref> and the photo's copyright actually belonged to Time, Inc., but the mistake was not detected until 2012.

===Accountability===

−

Wikipedia relies upon volunteer administrators to maintain the accountability of the ~~website~~ and enforce its rules. The number of administrators continues to shrink. In January 2008, there were 1,011 administrators, but the number dropped to 661 in November 2012, and as of June 2016, the number stands at 539.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table|title=Wikipedia:List of administrators/stat table|accessdate=July 27, 2016}}</ref> The number drops because the process of selecting new administrators subjects each candidate to extensive abuse. If the ~~action~~ of Wikipedia administrators ~~appears~~ very odd, there is a possibility that it is because ~~the actions~~ are the ~~product~~ of anonymous, very young people or, in certain cases, of mentally ill people. For example, sysop Altenmann was ~~desysopped~~ and community-banned in April 2010 for sockpuppeting and improper closure of deletion discussions over a period of several years. He admitted mental illness and has been unbanned.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=491693521</ref>

+

Wikipedia relies upon volunteer administrators to maintain the accountability of the site and enforce its rules. The number of administrators continues to shrink. In January 2008, there were 1,011 administrators, but the number dropped to 661 in November 2012, and as of June 2016, the number stands at 539.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table|title=Wikipedia:List of administrators/stat table|accessdate=July 27, 2016}}</ref> The number drops, because the process of selecting new administrators subjects each candidate to extensive abuse. If the actions of Wikipedia administrators appear very odd, there is a possibility that it is because they are the products of anonymous, very young people or, in certain cases, of mentally ill people. For example, sysop Altenmann was de-sysopped and community-banned in April 2010 for sockpuppeting and improper closure of deletion discussions over a period of several years. He admitted mental illness and has been unbanned.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=491693521</ref>

−

Fundamentally, the owner of a ~~website~~ is accountable for its governance and contents. To qualify for a tax exemption, Wikipedia is owned by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) that has a Board of Directors and a paid professional staff of 146.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en|title=Frequently asked questions|accessdate=February 7, 2013}}</ref> However, the WMF, its Board, and Staff disavow any accountability for the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Instead, co-founder Jimmy Wales claims ultimate authority for it and acts as the executive/monarch on whatever he chooses. For example, although the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is selected in an election, Wales accepts the election results and appoints the new members. As recently as September 2013, Wales claims to have the right to overturn Arbitration Committee decisions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=571759721&oldid=571756060If|title=User Talk:Jimbo Wales|date=September 6, 2013}}</ref> If a person has a complaint about being the victim of false libel by Wikipedia, the WMF disavows any control of the matter and hides behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. So, the WMF has a legal incentive to maintain a "hands-off" approach to content disputes. Its Board and Staff collect the charitable donations and meet IRS requirements, but Wales and the volunteer editors maintain the biased, defamatory site.

+

Fundamentally, the owner of a site is accountable for its governance and contents. To qualify for a tax exemption, Wikipedia is owned by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) that has a Board of Directors and a paid professional staff of 146.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en|title=Frequently asked questions|accessdate=February 7, 2013}}</ref> However, the WMF, its Board, and Staff disavow any accountability for the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Instead, co-founder Jimmy Wales claims ultimate authority for it and acts as the executive/monarch on whatever he chooses. For example, although the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is selected in an election, Wales accepts the election results and appoints the new members. As recently as September 2013, Wales claims to have the right to overturn Arbitration Committee decisions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=571759721&oldid=571756060If|title=User Talk:Jimbo Wales|date=September 6, 2013}}</ref> If a person has a complaint about being the victim of false libel by Wikipedia, the WMF disavows any control of the matter and hides behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. So, the WMF has a legal incentive to maintain a "hands-off" approach to content disputes. Its Board and Staff collect the charitable donations and meet IRS requirements, but Wales and the volunteer editors maintain the biased, defamatory site.

−

There have been lawsuits against Wikipedia and its editors. For example, Theodore Katsanevas, a Greek politician sued a Wikipedia editor and the WMF to seek removal of allegedly defamatory materials from the Greek Wikipedia. A Greek Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the removal of material, but other editors have added it back in and have translated the biography with the offending material into 20 other languages. A full trial is expected in 2016, and the WMF ~~has~~ promised to pay all of the defendants' legal fees.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/02/14/wikimedia-foundation-supports-wikipedia-user-subject-to-defamation-lawsuit-in-greece/|title=Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia user subject to defamation lawsuit in Greece|work=Wikimedia Blog|date=February 14, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref>

+

There have been lawsuits against Wikipedia and its editors. For example, Theodore Katsanevas, a Greek politician sued a Wikipedia editor and the WMF to seek removal of allegedly defamatory materials from the Greek Wikipedia. A Greek Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the removal of material, but other editors have added it back in and have translated the biography with the offending material into 20 other languages. A full trial was expected in 2016, and the WMF promised to pay all of the defendants' legal fees.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/02/14/wikimedia-foundation-supports-wikipedia-user-subject-to-defamation-lawsuit-in-greece/|title=Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia user subject to defamation lawsuit in Greece|work=Wikimedia Blog|date=February 14, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref>

==See also==

Line 244: Line 244:

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':

−

* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> ~~which shows~~ the content being posted, and the user that posted it.

+

* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code>, showing the content being posted and the user that posted it.

* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.

−

* Please post the content to the appropriate sub article if possible.

+

* Please post the content to the appropriate sub-article, if possible.

[[Category:Wikis]]

[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Philcooper81

49

edits

Changes

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)

Revision as of 18:55, August 13, 2019

Navigation menu

Search