Changes

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)

Revision as of 05:45, October 25, 2026

2 bytes removed , Yesterday at 05:45

improved Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

Line 1: Line 1: −

'''Bias in Wikipedia''' is a danger to a free society. This list covers a wide range of bias in the [[English]] [[Wikipedia]], nicknamed "Woke"-ipedia, website. Although Wikipedia claims to have credibility because anyone can edit it, the website represents the views of its most strident and persistent, and that is, [[liberal]] editors and many who push the agenda of [[Big Pharma]], which Wikipedia denies exists and instead reroutes the entry to "Big Pharma conspiracy theories." '''''Wikipedia has entries on Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and [[Big Tech]], but pretends that "[[Big Pharma]]" is merely a conspiracy theory!''''' Big Pharma secretly pays editors on Wikipedia to viciously smear critics of mandatory [[vaccination]] and anyone who gets in the way of Big Pharma profits.

+

'''Bias in Wikipedia''' is a danger to a free society. This list covers a wide range of bias in the [[English]] [[Wikipedia]], nicknamed "Woke"-ipedia, website. Although Wikipedia claims to have credibility because anyone can edit it, the website represents the views of its most strident and persistent editors, and that is, [[liberal]] editors and many who push the agenda of [[Big Pharma]], which Wikipedia denies exists and instead reroutes the entry to "Big Pharma conspiracy theories." '''''Wikipedia has entries on Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and [[Big Tech]], but pretends that "[[Big Pharma]]" is merely a conspiracy theory!''''' Big Pharma secretly pays editors on Wikipedia to viciously smear critics of mandatory [[vaccination]] and anyone who gets in the way of Big Pharma profits.

−

Editors on Wikipedia are virulently [[Opposition to Donald Trump|anti-Trump]], insisting on smearing [[Elon Musk]] because he supported [[Trump]]. 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 [a] 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>

+

Editors on Wikipedia are virulently [[Opposition to Donald Trump|anti-Trump]], insisting on smearing [[Elon Musk]] because he supported [[Trump]]. 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 [a] 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, provides a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.

−

A [[cabal]] of editors exists who work together to insert leftist bias into 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 theory|conspiracy theories]]", for example, ''Spygate'' (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) or "controversies" such as ''IRS targeting controversy'' or ''Hillary Clinton email controversy'', whereas those involving conservative personalities are labeled "scandal", for example ''Trump-Ukraine'' scandal.

+

A [[cabal]] of editors exists who work together to insert leftist bias into 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 theory|conspiracy theories]]", for example, ''Spygate'' (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) or "controversies" such as ''IRS targeting controversy'' or ''Hillary Clinton email controversy'', whereas those involving conservative personalities are labeled "scandal", for example, ''Trump-Ukraine'' scandal.

−

Biased editors' standard tactics include claiming conservative-leaning sources as being unreliable (non-<abbr title="Reliable Source">RS</abbr>). This also applies to centrist sources that are simply being truthful. The best way to observe Wikipedia is by reading an article's Talk page. One can see editors disparaging sources contrary to the mainstream media talking points. You will see scandals involving left-wing figures are typically dismissed as conspiracy theories. You will also see many derogatory comments about conservative figures, especially Donald Trump and Republican congressmen, senators, judges, and even many international conservative politicians like [[Narendra Modi]], [[Jair Bolsonaro]], and all other international Trump-backers fighting against the [[globalist]] agenda. Editors who fight for balanced coverage eventually get permanently blocked, as well as a months-long IP block.

+

Biased editors' standard tactics include claiming conservative-leaning sources as being unreliable (non-<abbr title="Reliable Source">RS</abbr>). This also applies to centrist sources that are simply being truthful. The best way to observe Wikipedia is by reading an article's Talk page. One can see editors disparaging sources contrary to the mainstream media talking points. You will see that scandals involving left-wing figures are typically dismissed as conspiracy theories. You will also see many derogatory comments about conservative figures, especially Donald Trump and Republican congressmen, senators, judges, and even many international conservative politicians like [[Narendra Modi]], [[Jair Bolsonaro]], and all other international Trump-backers fighting against the [[globalist]] agenda. Editors who fight for balanced coverage eventually get permanently blocked, as well as receiving a months-long IP block.

[[File:Jimbo.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Co-Founder of Wikipedia [[Jimmy Wales]]]]

Line 127: Line 127:

Essay<ref>Grabowski, J., & Klein, S. (2023). Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust. The Journal of Holocaust Research, 37(2), 133–190. [https://doi.org/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939]</ref> uncovers the systematic, intentional distortion of Holocaust history on the English-language Wikipedia, the world’s largest encyclopedia. In the last decade, a group of committed Wikipedia editors have been promoting a skewed version of history on Wikipedia, one touted by right-wing Polish nationalists, which whitewashes the role of Polish society in the Holocaust and bolsters stereotypes about Jews. Due to this group’s zealous handiwork, Wikipedia’s articles on the Holocaust in Poland minimize Polish antisemitism, exaggerate the Poles’ role in saving Jews.

===Anti-Israel===

−

[[File:How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative. (Arab lobby).jpeg|thumb|How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative. (Arab lobby). <ref>Ashley Rindsberg, "[https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-editors-hijacked-the-israel-palestine-narrative How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative]." Oct 23, 2024.</ref><ref>John Sexton, "[https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2024/10/25/a-group-of-pro-hamas-wikipedia-editors-have-rewritten-the-site-n3796291 A Group of Pro-Hamas Wikipedia Editors Have Rewritten the Israel-Palestine Narrative]. October 25, 2024</ref><ref>

+

[[File:How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative. (Arab lobby).jpeg|thumb|How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative. (Arab lobby)<ref>Ashley Rindsberg, "[https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-editors-hijacked-the-israel-palestine-narrative How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative]." Oct 23, 2024.</ref><ref>John Sexton, "[https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2024/10/25/a-group-of-pro-hamas-wikipedia-editors-have-rewritten-the-site-n3796291 A Group of Pro-Hamas Wikipedia Editors Have Rewritten the Israel-Palestine Narrative]. October 25, 2024</ref><ref>

Aaron Bandler, [https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/376157/wikipedia-editors-place-a-near-total-ban-on-calling-gaza-health-ministry-hamas-run/ Wikipedia Editors Place a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry “Hamas-Run”].

By a 3:1 margin, editors decided “Gaza Health Ministry” should be used without any qualifier. ''Jewish Journal'', October 25, 2024.</ref>]]

Line 133: Line 133:

There is an anti-Israel gang that, for years, has opposed sources, decided what is an RS, and pushed to ban users, some working in cooperation with a long-time infamous radical anti-Israel administrator.<ref>[https://david-collier.com/project-wikipedia/ Antisemites are trying to delete my Wikipedia page], Dec 3, 2021.</ref><ref>https://www.theisraelgroup.org/wikipedias-war-against-israel . [https://freebeacon.com/issues/wikipedias-anti-israel-editors-unmasked/ Wikipedia's Anti-Israel Editors Unmasked] - Free Beacon, Nov 20, 2019</ref>

−

There has been a consistent long-time Anti-Israeli subversion, noted at least since 2007,<ref>[https://www.aish.com/jw/mo/48964486.html Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia], May 17, 2008</ref> suppression,<ref>https://wikibias.wordpress.com/</ref> <ref>[http://www.think-israel.org/wikipedia.arabismracism.html PAN-ARABISM'S RACISM AND WIKIPEDIA BIAS] compiled and edited by Bernice Lipkin</ref> biases, inaccuracies, article by article - examples given in 2010.<ref>[https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/338216 The Bias of Wikipedia], Ari Lieberman, '"INN'', Jul 23, 2010</ref>

+

There has been a consistent long-time Anti-Israeli subversion, noted at least since 2007,<ref>[https://www.aish.com/jw/mo/48964486.html Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia], May 17, 2008</ref> suppression,<ref>https://wikibias.wordpress.com/</ref><ref>[http://www.think-israel.org/wikipedia.arabismracism.html PAN-ARABISM'S RACISM AND WIKIPEDIA BIAS] compiled and edited by Bernice Lipkin</ref> biases, inaccuracies, article by article - examples given in 2010.<ref>[https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/338216 The Bias of Wikipedia], Ari Lieberman, '"INN'', Jul 23, 2010</ref>

Project Wiki exposed how Wikipedia is breeding Armies of Anti-Semites.<ref>[https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/project-wiki-exposes-how-wikipedia-is-breeding-armies-of-anti-semites/2021/01/01/ Project Wiki Exposes How Wikipedia Is Breeding Armies of Anti-Semites], David Israel, JP, January 1, 2021</ref>

Line 175: Line 175: −

The ridiculous background of ~~pallyweid~~ "gaza genocide[sic]" wikipedia page.

+

The ridiculous background of pallyweird "gaza genocide[sic]" wikipedia page.

−

*Anti-Israel lobby: organized, coordinated edits.

+

*Anti-Israel lobby: organized, coordinated edits.

*Racist Francesca Albanese as the main source.

−

*Then, recruited~~, some fascistic terror~~ PFLP linked so called "human rights" groups, as "RS," ~~Al Mezan etc~~.

+

*Then recruited some fascistic terror PFLP-linked so called "human rights" groups as "RS," Al Mezan etc.

*The first edit based on Urban dictionary...

*Sockpuppeting.

Line 185: Line 185: −

In March 2025, ADL exposed the organized cabal of over 30 Wikipedia editors in their coordinated anti-Israel longtime edits. As well as ~~blantly~~ [[antisemitic]].<ref>[https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-846563 Thirty editors are altering Wikipedia articles with antisemitic bias]. ''JPost'', Mar 18, 2025</ref> ~~Thus~~ has been especially terrible under the Egyptian Arab: Maryana Iskander.

+

In March 2025, ADL exposed the organized cabal of over 30 Wikipedia editors in their coordinated anti-Israel longtime edits. As well as blatantly [[antisemitic]].<ref>[https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-846563 Thirty editors are altering Wikipedia articles with antisemitic bias]. ''JPost'', Mar 18, 2025</ref> This has been especially terrible under the Egyptian Arab: Maryana Iskander.

Line 198: Line 198:

[[File:Genocide lie on Wikipedia by an organized Israelophobic cabal.jpg|thumb|Genocide lie on Wikipedia by an organized Israelophobic cabal]]

−

The anti Israel distortion and falsehood got so bad on 'zionism' page and the "[https://justsayingitoutloloud.blogspot.com/2025/09/the-genocide-lie.html genocide lie]" that even liberal Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales intervened in Nov 2025.<ref>[https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-872598 Wikipedia's 'Gaza Genocide' article an example of how neutrality needs to be improved, founder says]. ''JPost'', Nov 3, 2025.

+

The anti-Israel distortion and falsehood got so bad on 'zionism' page and the "[https://justsayingitoutloloud.blogspot.com/2025/09/the-genocide-lie.html genocide lie]" that even liberal Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales intervened in Nov 2025.<ref>[https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-872598 Wikipedia's 'Gaza Genocide' article an example of how neutrality needs to be improved, founder says]. ''JPost'', Nov 3, 2025.

"Jimmy Wales warned the "Gaza Genocide" article needed immediate attention, as it "failed to meet the neutrality standards of Wikipedia.""</ref>

See related: ''[[Gaza GenoLIE]]''

−

''Wikipedia Flood'''s <ref>The Wikipedia Flood

+

''Wikipedia Flood's''<ref>The Wikipedia Flood

@WikipediaFlood [https://x.com/WikipediaFlood/status/1985693010772771289 Nov 4, 2025]</ref> reaction:

<blockquote>Suddenly Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales "discovers" that ONE Wiki article on Gaza is a pro-Hamas mess.

Line 210: Line 210:

2. Donors. Look at the calendar.

Don't expect anything more. This is an empty gesture.</blockquote>

−

The ''Wikipedia Flood '' has been documenting plenty of cases.<ref>[https://x.com/wikipediaflood Wikipedia Flood on X]. [https://thewikipediaflood.blogspot.com/?m=1 Wikipedia Flood]</ref> (Including on the [[Apartheid slur]]).

+

The ''Wikipedia Flood'' has been documenting plenty of cases.<ref>[https://x.com/wikipediaflood Wikipedia Flood on X]. [https://thewikipediaflood.blogspot.com/?m=1 Wikipedia Flood]</ref> (Including on the [[Apartheid slur]]).

See related ''[[Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor]]''.

Line 988: Line 988:

[[File:Wikipedia on Oct 7.jpg|thumb|Islamic editor inserts justifucation for Arab Palestinian genocidal Oct 7 attacks (2.22.26)]]

−

First line of Wikipedia Oct. 7 entry says Hamas terrorists came from ‘blockaded’ Gaza, seeming to justify attacks. (Islamic editor inserted it on Feb 22, 2026). “It’s yet another example of the Wikipedia editors’ anti-Israel bias,” Alyza Lewin of the Combat Antisemitism Movement told .

+

First line of Wikipedia Oct. 7 entry says Hamas terrorists came from ‘blockaded’ Gaza, seeming to justify attacks. (Islamic editor inserted it on Feb 22, 2026). “It’s yet another example of the Wikipedia editors’ anti-Israel bias,” Alyza Lewin of the Combat Antisemitism Movement told.

The Wikipedia user who launched the formal discussion stated that “Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip is a defining feature of this topic and necessary context for a non-specialist reader” and that the highest-quality sources support using the word “blockaded” in a neutral voice in the opening sentence.

The editor cited Rashid Khalidi, whom the editor called the “preeminent expert in modern Palestinian history,” to support using the term. Jonathan Schanzer, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has noted that Khalidi was a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization when the PLO was a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. Khalidi has denied that.

Line 995: Line 995: −

Over a year after [[ADL]] exposed a coordinated, multi-year campaign to inject antisemitic and anti-Israel narratives into Wikipedia ?March 2025 investigation, "Editing for Hate," which documented coordination among approximately 30 bad-faith editors to shift balanced narratives on Wikipedia pages covering Israel, Jewish history), in Oct 2026, "New ADL Center for Technology and Society (CTS) research finds 19 active accounts shaping framing on Israel, Hamas and October 7; biased editing has gone quiet, not away."<ref>[https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/434661 ADL: Wikipedia fails to fix distortions].

+

Over a year after [[ADL]] exposed a coordinated, multi-year campaign to inject antisemitic and anti-Israel narratives into Wikipedia March 2025 investigation, "Editing for Hate," which documented coordination among approximately 30 bad-faith editors to shift balanced narratives on Wikipedia pages covering Israel, Jewish history, in Oct 2026, "New ADL Center for Technology and Society (CTS) research finds 19 active accounts shaping framing on Israel, Hamas and October 7; biased editing has gone quiet, not away."<ref>[https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/434661 ADL: Wikipedia fails to fix distortions].

New ADL Center for Technology and Society research finds 19 active accounts shaping framing on Israel, Hamas and October 7; biased editing has gone quiet, not away. ''Israel National News''

Oct 15, 2026.</ref>

Line 1,023: Line 1,023: −

Reported mid-Oct 2026, A Canadian Arab led "pro-Palestinian" group, Artists Against Artwashing (AAA), plans to hold a Wikipedia editing event on October 22, 2026,<ref>[https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-911867 Canadian Anti-Israel Group to Host Wikipedia Editing Event Honoring ‘Martyred’ Palestinians]. ''The Jerusalem Post,'' October 15, 2026.</ref> aimed at honoring "martyrs," including murderous racist Arab Palestinian terrorists as “martyrs” and highlighting alleged Canadian and Zionist complicity in the Gaza war.

+

Reported mid-Oct 2026, A Canadian Arab led "pro-Palestinian" group, Artists Against Artwashing (AAA), plans to hold a Wikipedia editing event on October 22, 2026,<ref>[https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-911867 Canadian Anti-Israel Group to Host Wikipedia Editing Event Honoring ‘Martyred’ Palestinians]. ''The Jerusalem Post,'' October 15, 2026.</ref> aimed at honoring "martyrs," including murderous racist Arab Palestinian terrorists as “martyrs” and highlighting alleged Canadian and Zionist complicity in the Gaza war.

Key points:

−

- Alarms about bias: Organizing Wikipedia edits around a predetermined political agenda violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy. This was raised by Wikipedia co-founder too and reminded, per rules, they ~~aught~~ to be blocked.

+

- Alarms about bias: Organizing Wikipedia edits around a predetermined political agenda violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy. This was raised by Wikipedia co-founder too and reminded, per rules, they ought to be blocked.

−

- Previous editing campaign: AAA held a similar workshop in April targeting articles related to Israel’s Azrieli Group and the Azrieli Foundation. One account, “Sure-thing-no-problem,” was registered that day. Another account, “subterra6677,” edited the Azrieli Group and David Azrieli articles and was warned in June about edit warring.'

+

- Previous editing campaign: AAA held a similar workshop in April targeting articles related to Israel’s Azrieli Group and the Azrieli Foundation. One account, “Sure-thing-no-problem,” was registered that day. Another account, “subterra6677,” edited the Azrieli Group and David Azrieli articles and was warned in June about edit warring.

- Similar initiatives: Hamas-linked Euro-Med "Human Rights" Monitor has trained Palestinians to edit Wikipedia articles about the Israel-Hamas war through its WikiRights program.

−

- ADL findings: A report from the Anti-Defamation League that biased edits concerning Israel, Zionism, Hamas, and Jewish history remain in widely read Wikipedia articles despite efforts to address them.

+

- ADL findings: A report from the Anti-Defamation League found that biased edits concerning Israel, Zionism, Hamas, and Jewish history remain in widely read Wikipedia articles despite efforts to address them.

−

Bottom line: The 10/15/26 report raises concerns ~~are raised~~ that politically organized Wikipedia editing influences how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is presented.

+

Bottom line: The 10/15/26 report raises concerns that politically organized Wikipedia editing influences how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is presented.

===Coronavirus===

−

Wikipedia's Coronavirus articles have no criticism of China, instead, they blame Trump. They say that China warned the world<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China</ref> and that Trump waited too long<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref>. The reality is, Chinese doctors were silenced by Xi Jinping just for trying to spread the truth, and Wikipedia absurdly doesn't mention it. They even said that Trump wants to force the nation to inject dangerous chemicals to get rid of coronavirus! They also make Biden look anti-China, but he would never hold China accountable for the coronavirus. Trump, on the other hand, looks like pro-China, even though he will hold China accountable for the coronavirus. Whenever Trump criticizes China, they [Wikipedia and the mainstream media] call it "coronavirus misinformation", basically sympathizing with China. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia doesn't even mention the doctors that were silenced by the CCP<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/03/asia/coronavirus-doctor-whistle-blower-intl-hnk/index.html</ref>, but instead, praises China by saying " China announced the discovery of a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan." However, Trump and Putin are heavily criticized ("Meanwhile, President Donald Trump largely downplayed the threat posed by the virus and claimed the outbreak was under control.") ~~However,~~ in China's coronavirus article, they say that there ~~was~~ no new cases and the virus was under control.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China</ref>

+

Wikipedia's Coronavirus articles have no criticism of China, instead, they blame Trump. They say that China warned the world<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China</ref> and that Trump waited too long<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref>. The reality is, Chinese doctors were silenced by Xi Jinping just for trying to spread the truth, and Wikipedia absurdly doesn't mention it. They even said that Trump wants to force the nation to inject dangerous chemicals to get rid of coronavirus! They also make Biden look anti-China, but he would never hold China accountable for the coronavirus. Trump, on the other hand, looks like pro-China, even though he will hold China accountable for the coronavirus. Whenever Trump criticizes China, they [Wikipedia and the mainstream media] call it "coronavirus misinformation", basically sympathizing with China<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia doesn't even mention the doctors that were silenced by the CCP<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/03/asia/coronavirus-doctor-whistle-blower-intl-hnk/index.html</ref>, but instead, praises China by saying " China announced the discovery of a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan." However, Trump and Putin are heavily criticized ("Meanwhile, President Donald Trump largely downplayed the threat posed by the virus and claimed the outbreak was under control.") in China's coronavirus article, they say that there were no new cases and the virus was under control.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China</ref>

===Trump Family Separation Policy===

−

# Such family separations have occurred under previous Presidents, and therefore the article should not be specifically named after Trump. <ref>https://apnews.com/26b88518310f47018b724e200b28e88f/Origins-of-family-separation-issue-stretch-back-many-years</ref>

+

# Such family separations have occurred under previous Presidents, and therefore the article should not be specifically named after Trump<ref>https://apnews.com/26b88518310f47018b724e200b28e88f/Origins-of-family-separation-issue-stretch-back-many-years</ref>

−

# Trump has never had any specific “Family Separation Policy”, another reason why this article title is highly misleading. Contrary to common misrepresentation in the media, the “Zero Tolerance Policy” had nothing to do with family separations, but was only about following the law, to prosecute those who break the law by entering the country illegally. <ref>https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry</ref>

+

# Trump has never had any specific “Family Separation Policy”, which is another reason why this article title is highly misleading. Contrary to common misrepresentation in the media, the “Zero Tolerance Policy” had nothing to do with family separations, but was only about following the law, to prosecute those who break the law by entering the country illegally<ref>https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry</ref>

−

# The family separations discussed in the article were a direct consequence of a court ruling on the Flores Settlement on July 6th, 2016, while Obama was President. Trump had no role or involvement in ~~that.~~ <ref>https://www.aila.org/infonet/flores-v-reno-settlement-agreement</ref>

+

# The family separations discussed in the article were a direct consequence of a court ruling on the Flores Settlement on July 6th, 2016, while Obama was President. Trump had no role or involvement in tha<ref>https://www.aila.org/infonet/flores-v-reno-settlement-agreement</ref>

===Criminals and mentally ill editors===

See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Criminals and mentally ill editors]]

−

#Adam Lanza, who conducted a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, has been identified as editing Wikipedia particularly regarding guns and other mass murders.<ref>{{cite web|title=Report: Computer user believed to be Adam Lanza discovered|url=https://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/report_computer_user_believed_to_be_adam_lanza_discovered/|first=Alex|last=Halperin|date=July 1, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013|work=Salon.com}}</ref>

+

#Adam Lanza, who conducted a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, has been identified as editing Wikipedia particularly regarding guns and other mass murders.<ref>{{cite web|title=Report: Computer user believed to be Adam Lanza discovered|url=https://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/report_computer_user_believed_to_be_adam_lanza_discovered/|first=Alex|last=Halperin|date=July 1, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013|work=Salon.com}}</ref>

#Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik edited English Wikipedia under the username "Conservatism". He also edited the Norwegian Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-05-06/In_the_media#Anders_Behring_Breivik.27s_English_Wikipedia_account_revealed|title=Signpost|date=May 6, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>

−

#~~The~~ the United States Federal Government claimed, among other things, that Bruce Edwards Ivins, a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks who apparently committed suicide in July 2008, had edit-warred on Wikipedia under the username Jimmyflathead.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-08-09/Ivins%27_edits|title=Signpost|date=August 8, 2008|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/01/us/anthrax-killer-case|title=Strange sorority fixation was link that led to anthrax suspect|work=CNN|date=October 1, 2011|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>

+

#the United States Federal Government claimed, among other things, that Bruce Edwards Ivins, a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks who apparently committed suicide in July 2008, had edit-warred on Wikipedia under the username Jimmyflathead.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-08-09/Ivins%27_edits|title=Signpost|date=August 8, 2008|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/01/us/anthrax-killer-case|title=Strange sorority fixation was link that led to anthrax suspect|work=CNN|date=October 1, 2011|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>

=== Dictators ===

Line 1,053: Line 1,053:

# Wikipedia sympathizes with brutal Venezuelan dictator [[Nicolas Maduro]] by calling him "His Excellency" in the infobox, and by calling him "active president".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Maduro</ref> He even screamed at [[Donald Trump]]<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GoG37D9ujc&ab_channel=TheStraitsTimes</ref>, and he sent military vehicles to run over protesters.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4QnAe4qs_g&ab_channel=GlobalNews</ref><ref>https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article229853509.html</ref>

−

# Wikipedia makes a slight mention of though undercuts the significance of [[Adolf Hitler]]'s opposition to [[Christianity]] that has been recorded,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Views_on_religion Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> and doesn't, if barely at all ~~admits~~ that his public praise of Christianity was only for power purposes,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_on_Christianity_and_%22Positive_Christianity%22 Religious view of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> as that had been part of an infiltration of churches to use for spouting Nazi propaganda.<ref>[https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Hitler-a-Christian.html Was Hitler a Christian | GotQuestions.org]</ref>

+

# Wikipedia makes a slight mention of, though it undercuts the significance of [[Adolf Hitler]]'s opposition to [[Christianity]] that has been recorded,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Views_on_religion Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> and doesn't, if barely at all, admit that his public praise of Christianity was only for power purposes,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_on_Christianity_and_%22Positive_Christianity%22 Religious view of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia]</ref> as that had been part of an infiltration of churches to use for spouting Nazi propaganda.<ref>[https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Hitler-a-Christian.html Was Hitler a Christian | GotQuestions.org]</ref>

−

# In the last paragraph in the header of Vladimir Putin's article, Wikipedia says "Under Putin's leadership, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding. Experts do not generally consider Russia to be a democracy, citing jailing of political opponents, curtailed press freedom, and the lack of free and fair elections. Russia has scored poorly on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, and Freedom House's Freedom in the World index (including a record low 20/100 rating in the 2017 Freedom in the World report, a rating not given since the time of the Soviet Union). Human rights organizations and activists accuse Putin of persecuting political critics and activists as well as ordering them tortured or assassinated; he has rejected accusations of human rights abuses. Officials of the United States government have accused him of leading an interference program against Hillary Clinton in support of Donald Trump during the U.S. presidential election in 2016, an allegation which both Trump and Putin have frequently denied and criticized."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin</ref> But in Xi Jinping's Wikipedia article, Wikipedia states "Xi is the first General Secretary born after the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Since assuming power, Xi has introduced far-ranging measures to enforce party and national discipline and to impose internal unity. His anti-corruption campaign has led to the downfall of prominent incumbent and retired Communist Party officials, including members of the Politburo Standing Committee. He has also enacted or promoted a more assertive foreign policy, particularly with regard to China-Japan relations, China's claims in the South China Sea, and its advocacy for free trade and globalization. He has sought to expand China's African and Eurasian influence through the Belt and Road Initiative. As the central figure of the fifth generation of leadership of the People's Republic, Xi has significantly centralized institutional power by taking on a wide range of leadership positions, including chairing the newly formed National Security Commission, as well as new steering committees on economic and social democratic reforms, military restructuring and modernization, and the internet. Xi's political thoughts have been written into the party and state constitutions. Xi has often been called a "dictator" or an "authoritarian leader" by conservative political and academic observers, and Xi Jinping's opponents, citing an increase of censorship and mass surveillance, a claimed deterioration in human rights, the cult of personality developing around him, and the removal of term limits for the leadership under his tenure.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping</ref>, basically not even criticizing Xi Jinping as much as Vladimir Putin, even though he is much worse, as China has a freedom score of 10 out of 100<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and Russia has a freedom score of 20 out of 100.<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/russia/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and when countries have low freedom scores, they are way more dangerous, due to the more undemocratic governments.

+

# In the last paragraph in the header of Vladimir Putin's article, Wikipedia says "Under Putin's leadership, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding. Experts do not generally consider Russia to be a democracy, citing jailing of political opponents, curtailed press freedom, and the lack of free and fair elections. Russia has scored poorly on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, and Freedom House's Freedom in the World index (including a record low 20/100 rating in the 2017 Freedom in the World report, a rating not given since the time of the Soviet Union). Human rights organizations and activists accuse Putin of persecuting political critics and activists as well as ordering them tortured or assassinated; he has rejected accusations of human rights abuses. Officials of the United States government have accused him of leading an interference program against Hillary Clinton in support of Donald Trump during the U.S. presidential election in 2016, an allegation which both Trump and Putin have frequently denied and criticized."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin</ref> But in Xi Jinping's Wikipedia article, Wikipedia states "Xi is the first General Secretary born after the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Since assuming power, Xi has introduced far-ranging measures to enforce party and national discipline and to impose internal unity. His anti-corruption campaign has led to the downfall of prominent incumbent and retired Communist Party officials, including members of the Politburo Standing Committee. He has also enacted or promoted a more assertive foreign policy, particularly with regard to China-Japan relations, China's claims in the South China Sea, and its advocacy for free trade and globalization. He has sought to expand China's African and Eurasian influence through the Belt and Road Initiative. As the central figure of the fifth generation of leadership of the People's Republic, Xi has significantly centralized institutional power by taking on a wide range of leadership positions, including chairing the newly formed National Security Commission, as well as new steering committees on economic and social democratic reforms, military restructuring and modernization, and the internet. Xi's political thoughts have been written into the party and state constitutions. Xi has often been called a " dictator" or an "authoritarian leader" by conservative political and academic observers, and Xi Jinping's opponents, citing an increase of censorship and mass surveillance, a claimed deterioration in human rights, the cult of personality developing around him, and the removal of term limits for the leadership under his tenure.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping</ref>, basically not even criticizing Xi Jinping as much as Vladimir Putin, even though he is much worse, as China has a freedom score of 10 out of 100<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and Russia has a freedom score of 20 out of 100.<ref>https://freedomhouse.org/country/russia/freedom-world/2020</ref>, and when countries have low freedom scores, they are way more dangerous, due to the more undemocratic governments.

===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>

+

# 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>

−

While the [[RNC]] August, 2020 has rightfully eliminated Mary Ann Mendoza after revealing she retweeted<ref>[https://baptistnews.com/article/rnc-speaker-mary-ann-mendoza-removed-from-lineup-after-sharing-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-on-twitter/ RNC speaker Mary Ann Mendoza removed from lineup after sharing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on Twitter. BNG STAFF. Baptist News. August 27, 2020]</ref> recycled ludicrous old canard [[anti-Semitic]] conspiracy theories~~, yet~~, at the time, infamous Wikipedian racist Nishidani is still on [[Wikipedia]]. As part of anti-Jewish campaign since 2006: Nishidani sugarcoated Hitler's buddy [[Grand Mufti of Jerusalem]]; pushed for [[Farrakhan]]'s conspiracy-theories rubbish on July 2020 just before Nick Cannon's apology; supported the Islamic Republic of [[Iran]]'s proxy anti-US/anti-Israel Houthis in [[Yemen]] in its use of human shields; whitewashed terror entity Palestinian-Arab [[Hamas]] and its use of own people as human shields in order to aim at Israeli civilians (and at children whenever they can<ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=sderot+kindergartens+hamas Sderot kindergartens]</ref>) as well as jihadi terror [[Hezbollah]].<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/260150 'Mary Ann Mendoza' VS 'Nishidani on Wikipedia': anti-Jewish bigotry, racism, hatred, old conspiracy theories garbage. Aug 27, 2020]</ref>

+

While the [[RNC]] August 2020 has rightfully eliminated Mary Ann Mendoza after revealing she retweeted<ref>[https://baptistnews.com/article/rnc-speaker-mary-ann-mendoza-removed-from-lineup-after-sharing-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-on-twitter/ RNC speaker Mary Ann Mendoza removed from lineup after sharing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on Twitter. BNG STAFF. Baptist News. August 27, 2020]</ref> recycled ludicrous old canard [[anti-Semitic]] conspiracy theories, at the time, infamous Wikipedian racist Nishidani was still on [[Wikipedia]]. As part of anti-Jewish campaign since 2006: Nishidani sugarcoated Hitler's buddy [[Grand Mufti of Jerusalem]]; pushed for [[Farrakhan]]'s conspiracy-theories rubbish in July 2020 just before Nick Cannon's apology; supported the Islamic Republic of [[Iran]]'s proxy anti-US/anti-Israel Houthis in [[Yemen]] in its use of human shields; whitewashed terror entity Palestinian-Arab [[Hamas]] and its use of own people as human shields in order to aim at Israeli civilians (and at children whenever they can<ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=sderot+kindergartens+hamas Sderot kindergartens]</ref>) as well as jihadi terror [[Hezbollah]].<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/260150 'Mary Ann Mendoza' VS 'Nishidani on Wikipedia': anti-Jewish bigotry, racism, hatred, old conspiracy theories garbage. Aug 27, 2020]</ref>

===Foreign hackers===

−

Wikipedia has a very long article of "Cyberwarfare by Russia", heavily criticizing the Russian government, which they say ~~that it~~ is "confirmed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia</ref>, but their article of "Chinese cyberwarfare" is not really critical to the Chinese government, and they say that it is "claimed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cyberwarfare</ref>. Russia is already a declining power and it is slowly becoming a democracy, but China is getting even worse, and it is becoming more powerful than ever. In their "Cyberwarfare and Iran" article, they do say that Iran's hacking is "confirmed", but they praise to Obama for "trying to abolish" the hackers, even though they [Iran] got American national bank access and taxpayer money from the [[Iran nuclear deal]].

+

Wikipedia has a very long article on "Cyberwarfare by Russia", heavily criticizing the Russian government, which they say is "confirmed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia</ref>, but their article on "Chinese cyberwarfare" is not really critical to the Chinese government, and they say that it is "claimed"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cyberwarfare</ref>. and Russia is already a declining power and it is slowly becoming a democracy, but China is getting even worse, and it is becoming more powerful than ever. In their "Cyberwarfare and Iran" article, they do say that Iran's hacking is "confirmed", but they praise Obama for "trying to abolish" the hackers, even though they [Iran] got American national bank access and taxpayer money from the [[Iran nuclear deal]].

===Gender bias===

Line 1,077: Line 1,077:

# A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member [[William M. Connolley|William Connolley]] functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he "rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period."<ref>[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx ''Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor'',] December 19, 2009</ref>

−

#[[Michael Mann]] is a well known global warming alarmist who is ridiculed for his so-called scientific work on tree ring temperature data, the Hockey Stick theory and was the subject of fraud in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wikipedia decides to allow mention of his involvement with Climategate. Attempts to add the mention were repeatedly undone,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=prev&oldid=332744981</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=next&oldid=332759870</ref> though some mention of Climategate was eventually added on Mann's page.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_controversy</ref>

+

# [[Michael Mann]] is a well known global warming alarmist who is ridiculed for his so-called scientific work on tree ring temperature data, the Hockey Stick theory and was the subject of fraud in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wikipedia decides to allow mention of his involvement with Climategate. Attempts to add the mention were repeatedly undone,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=prev&oldid=332744981</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=next&oldid=332759870</ref> though some mention of Climategate was eventually added on Mann's page.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_controversy</ref>

===Homosexuality===

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

−

#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Male to Female ~~transexuals~~ are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.

+

# Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Male to Female transsexuals are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage being absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.

#When NBA Basketball player [[Jason Collins]] announced that he was a homosexual, his Wikipedia biography was altered to say that he was a "faggot." When an editor attempted to change the word to "gay" Wikipedia's anti-vandalism robot changed it back.<ref>https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/jason-collins-faggot-washington-wizards-wikipedia_n_3223693.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=553353534</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=next&oldid=554154699</ref> An editor replaced his photo with a poster for "Gay N-word".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=554154681</ref> After the page drew criticism on the Huffington Post, Wikipedia locked the page to editing and the changes have been hidden from public view. The article on the 2012-13 Washington Wizards season had similar problems.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012–13_Washington_Wizards_season&diff=553709164&oldid=552936180</ref>

−

#After an edit war,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_Manning&diff=569753966&oldid=569753791</ref> Wikipedia changed the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning and gave the article subject female attributes, even though Manning had yet to ~~legal~~ change his name or begin any sex reassignment treatments or therapies.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning#Page_moved_to_Chelsea_Manning_without_sufficient_consensus|title=Chelsea Manning talk page|accessdate=Aug 24, 2013}}</ref> The article was moved between "Chelsea Manning" and "Bradley Manning" six times in one day as Wikipedia administrators fought among themselves.

+

#After an edit war,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_Manning&diff=569753966&oldid=569753791</ref> Wikipedia changed the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning and gave the article subject female attributes, even though Manning had yet to legally change his name or begin any sex reassignment treatments or therapies.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning#Page_moved_to_Chelsea_Manning_without_sufficient_consensus|title=Chelsea Manning talk page|accessdate=Aug 24, 2013}}</ref> The article was moved between "Chelsea Manning" and "Bradley Manning" six times in one day as Wikipedia administrators fought among themselves.

#Wikipedia's article on "Homophobia," dignifies the use of what is actually a pejorative slur word to turn readers against those who oppose the posterior orifice intercourse of men-lying-with-men. The use of this word is an attempt to classify those who oppose such sodomy as having a mental disorder, a phobia. An attempt to demonstrate that opposition to sodomy is neither a fear nor an irrational fear (phobia) supported by the absence of such a phobia in the ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,'' will not be tolerated in the article. The existence of this article is a violation of the Wikipedia NPOV standard, as the use of such slur words is an obvious attempt to win a debate by changing the vocabulary (as in changing from fornication to sexually active).<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia</ref>

===Ideological terrorism===

−

Wikipedia has an extremely long article of Right-wing terrorism<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism</ref>, but their Left-wing terrorism is short and doesn't even criticize to leftists ~~that~~ much as they do to rightists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism</ref>. Their Right-wing terrorism article says they are "Nazis" and "racists", but their Left-wing terrorism just says they are "fighting" against the racists and fighting for so-called democratic reforms. Even though left-wing terrorism is way ~~larges~~ than right-wing terrorism and is expanding quicker, Wikipedia says that left-wing terrorism disappeared by the mid-1990s, even though it has grown dramatically through the rising power of China. The right-wing terrorism article has a gigantic list of right-wing terrorism occurrences, but their left-wing terrorism has none, just the list of terrorist groups. Another key fact is that in Wikipedia's Asia section of "Left-wing terrorism", there is absolutely no mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism#Asia</ref>, but China has benefited global terrorists by funding them and making us vulnerable<ref>https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/how-china-will-make-us-more-vulnerable-terrorists</ref>. Instead, it even sympathizes with that terrorism by saying they are fighting for democratic reforms. Their article "Left-wing authoritarianism redirects to Right-wing authoritarianism, which has another gigantic list of right-wing dictators. Also, in Wikipedia's article "Terrorism in China", they say that it is for ideological change and that it is against [[Xi Jinping]] and the Chinese government<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China</ref>, basically sympathizing with the [[Chinese Communist Party]].

+

Wikipedia has an extremely long article of Right-wing terrorism<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism</ref>, but their Left-wing terrorism is short and doesn't even criticize leftists as much as they do rightists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism</ref>. Their Right-wing terrorism article says they are "Nazis" and "racists", but their Left-wing terrorism just says they are "fighting" against the racists and fighting for so-called democratic reforms. Even though left-wing terrorism is way larger than right-wing terrorism and is expanding quicker, Wikipedia says that left-wing terrorism disappeared by the mid-1990s, even though it has grown dramatically through the rising power of China. The right-wing terrorism article has a gigantic list of right-wing terrorism occurrences, but their left-wing terrorism has none, just the list of terrorist groups. Another key fact is that in Wikipedia's Asia section of "Left-wing terrorism", there is absolutely no mention of China<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism#Asia</ref>, but China has benefited global terrorists by funding them and making us vulnerable<ref>https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/how-china-will-make-us-more-vulnerable-terrorists</ref>. Instead, it even sympathizes with that terrorism by saying they are fighting for democratic reforms. Their article "Left-wing authoritarianism redirects to Right-wing authoritarianism, which has another gigantic list of right-wing dictators. Also, in Wikipedia's article " Terrorism in China", they say that it is for ideological change and that it is against [[Xi Jinping]] and the Chinese government<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China</ref>, basically sympathizing with the [[Chinese Communist Party]].

===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>

−

#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 sources, such as ''[[Breitbart News]]'', ''[[The Daily Caller]]'', ''[[The New American]]'', ''[[The Epoch Times]]'', ''[[The Gateway Pundit]]'', and ''[[The Washington Examiner]]''<ref>Shaw, C. Mitchell (September 27, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/33525-wikipedia-editor-scrubs-citations-to-the-new-american-from-hunter-biden-page Wikipedia Editor Scrubs Citations to The New American from Hunter Biden Page]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 28, 2019.</ref><ref>Adler, T.D. (December 20, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/12/20/wikipedia-blacklists-epoch-times-gateway-pundit-for-russiagate-criticism/ Wikipedia Blacklists Epoch Times, Gateway Pundit for Russiagate Criticism]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 20, 2019.</ref> despite allowing [[liberal media]] sources that promote [[fake news]] as sources. Additionally, using sources even like ''[[The New York Post]]'' and ''[[The Washington Times]]'' 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. The Wikipedia article for the Epoch Times cites an NBC report claiming that it "[spreads] conspiracy theories such as QAnon"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times</ref>, however, The Epoch Times has only published two articles about [[QAnon]], neither of which ~~are~~ spreading or promoting ~~it.~~ <ref>{{cite news |title=The 'Q' Phenomenon |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-q-phenomenon_2581642.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=2 July 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title='Q' Community Responds to Media Attacks |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/media-attacks-do-little-to-sway-q-supporters_2617778.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=7 August 2018}}</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 sources, such as ''[[Breitbart News]]'', ''[[The Daily Caller]]'', ''[[The New American]]'', ''[[The Epoch Times]]'', ''[[The Gateway Pundit]]'', and ''[[The Washington Examiner]]''<ref>Shaw, C. Mitchell (September 27, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/33525-wikipedia-editor-scrubs-citations-to-the-new-american-from-hunter-biden-page Wikipedia Editor Scrubs Citations to The New American from Hunter Biden Page]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 28, 2019.</ref><ref>Adler, T.D. (December 20, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/12/20/wikipedia-blacklists-epoch-times-gateway-pundit-for-russiagate-criticism/ Wikipedia Blacklists Epoch Times, Gateway Pundit for Russiagate Criticism]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 20, 2019.</ref> despite allowing [[liberal media]] sources that promote [[fake news]] as sources. Additionally, using sources even like ''[[The New York Post]]'' and ''[[The Washington Times]]'' 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. The Wikipedia article for the Epoch Times cites an NBC report claiming that it "[spreads] conspiracy theories such as QAnon"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times</ref>, however, The Epoch Times has only published two articles about [[QAnon]], neither of which is spreading or promoting i<ref>{{cite news |title=The 'Q' Phenomenon |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-q-phenomenon_2581642.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=2 July 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title='Q' Community Responds to Media Attacks |url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/media-attacks-do-little-to-sway-q-supporters_2617778.html |work=www.theepochtimes.com |date=7 August 2018}}</ref>

===Iran nuclear deal===

−

Even though the Iran nuclear deal allowed Iran to have access to taxpayer money and national banks, and also ~~allowing~~ Iran to create nuclear weapons, Wikipedia said the deal helped prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons through so-called sanctions.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Sanctions</ref> Now, because of Obama, Iran is more powerful than ever, thanks to Obama's loyalty to unfree governments. Wikipedia also blatantly said that in the year 2030, the consequences of the 1979 Revolution won't be "active" anymore<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#15-year_term</ref>, even though the deal would make Iran more powerful than ever.

+

Even though the Iran nuclear deal allowed Iran to have access to taxpayer money and national banks, and also allowed Iran to create nuclear weapons, Wikipedia said the deal helped prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons through so-called sanctions.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Sanctions</ref> Now, because of Obama, Iran is more powerful than ever, thanks to Obama's loyalty to unfree governments. Wikipedia also blatantly said that in the year 2030, the consequences of the 1979 Revolution won't be "active" anymore<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#15-year_term</ref>, even though the deal would make Iran more powerful than ever.

===Journalists===

See, [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Journalists]], [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Sun News Network]]

−

#In early October 2005, a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Instead of correcting the false allegations that Seigenthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wiki drama with attacks on Seigenthaler for trying to defend his own good name.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref><ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref><ref>[https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref><ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

+

#In early October 2005, a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]] contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Instead of correcting the false allegations that Seigenthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wiki drama with attacks on Seigenthaler for trying to defend his own good name.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref><ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref><ref>[https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref><ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

#Israeli journalist [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Levy Gideon Levy's Wikipedia Biography] has been frequently vandalized with false facts, including allegations that his father was a Nazi collaborator.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/in-a-web-of-lies-the-newspaper-must-live.premium-1.469273|title=

In a Web of lies, the newspaper must live|first=Gideon|last=Levy|date=October 11, 2012|accesdate=October 11, 2012|work=Haaretz Daily Newspaper}}</ref> So many slanderous statements have been posted that the revisions to the article have been hidden from public view at least 22 times.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Gideon_Levy|title=Gideon Levy Deletion Log|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref> After the Seigenthaler revelations, Wikipedia moved toward requiring in-line citations but still stresses "verifiability" over factual material.

−

#BBC presenter Lynn Parsons wrote Wikipedia claiming that her biography was false—including her birth date. Her request to have her article deleted was voted down.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lynn_Parsons|title=Articles for Deletion|accessdate=November 18, 2012|date=November 10, 2012}}</ref>

+

#BBC presenter Lynn Parsons wrote to Wikipedia claiming that her biography was false—including her birth date. Her request to have her article deleted was voted down.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lynn_Parsons|title=Articles for Deletion|accessdate=November 18, 2012|date=November 10, 2012}}</ref>

===Liberal politicians===

Line 1,109: Line 1,109:

#The Wikipedia article on the liberal former President of [[Brazil]], [[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&oldid=526671990|title=Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva|accessdate=December 12, 2012}}</ref> makes a passing reference to the [[mensalão scandal]] as if Lula was not personally involved, but fails to report that convicted conspirators testified that Lula himself knew of and approved of the vote-buying.<ref>{{cite news|title=Brazil: Report: Lula knew of vote-buying scheme|work=Washington Post|date=December 12, 2012|page=A8}}</ref> Instead, Wikipedia depicts Lula as a widely admired politician.

# Wikipedia's article on [[Jimmy Carter]]'s Presidency is clearly biased in favor of the failed politician.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter#Budget</ref>

−

# Various attempts have been made on Wikipedia to emphasize the controversial fact that [[Elizabeth Warren]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755585604</ref> claimed on many occasions to be a Native American and a "person of color" despite a lack of documented evidence. Due to the revival of this controversy by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, attempts were made to create a separate paragraph about the issue. However, a cabal of administrators instead insisted that the controversy remain buried in the bottom of a section about her 2012 campaign where many readers said they were unable to ~~find it~~.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755040824 This, for example ("Controversies"), where an editor did not know it was already in the article.]</ref>

+

# Various attempts have been made on Wikipedia to emphasize the controversial fact that [[Elizabeth Warren]]<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755585604</ref> claimed on many occasions to be a Native American and a "person of color" despite a lack of documented evidence. Due to the revival of this controversy by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, attempts were made to create a separate paragraph about the issue. However, a cabal of administrators instead insisted that the controversy remain buried in the bottom of a section about her 2012 campaign where many readers said they were unable to findt.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Warren&oldid=755040824 This, for example ("Controversies"), where an editor did not know it was already in the article.]</ref>

+

# Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is heavily praised by Wikipedia for trying to decriminalize illegal immigration, decreeing the [[Green New Deal]] which would cost $100 trillion from taxpayer, corporate, and bank money, LGBTQ "rights" for supporting so-called democratic reforms that are actually Communist, as well as comparing migrant detention centers to [Nazi] concentration and death camps, which she said just to make Trump look bad.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Political_positions</ref>

Line 1,117: Line 1,118:

Subjects such as Mathematics and Engineering require a precision of thought that is more than the group-think of Wikipedia editors can muster.

# The Wikipedia article [[Elementary proof]] was proposed for deletion in October 2009 and the debate turned on what Conservapedia had written on the subject. The article was kept and not deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elementary_proof Retrieved July 17, 2014.</ref>

+

# A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym ''Jagged85'' made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]

Line 1,127: Line 1,129:

# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The section on Bush has since been removed.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&diff=282810799&oldid=282227871</ref>

# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=278422248</ref> but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama</ref> Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush</ref> while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The edit summary of the redirect says, "so the conservatards won't get their knickers in a twist."

−

# Wikipedia's article on [[Donald Trump]] is a hit piece consisting mainly of negative statements and allegations, including an entire section<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#False_statements</ref> dedicated to how "fact-checkers" and "academics" from [[CNN]] and other [[left-wing]] news outlets have concluded that Trump has made up to 18,000 false statements since taking office (though no examples are listed), a ridiculous allegation which is presented as fact by Wikipedia. Obama's article, by contrast, paints a glowing image of the former president and contains no such section regarding "false statements", even though Obama was frequently derided for making false statements while in office <ref>https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=barack-obama</ref>.

+

# Wikipedia's article on [[Donald Trump]] is a hit piece consisting mainly of negative statements and allegations, including an entire section<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#False_statements</ref> dedicated to how "fact-checkers" and "academics" from [[CNN]] and other [[left-wing]] news outlets have concluded that Trump has made up to 18,000 false statements since taking office (though no examples are listed), a ridiculous allegation which is presented as fact by Wikipedia. Obama's article, by contrast, paints a glowing image of the former president and contains no such section regarding "false statements", even though Obama was frequently derided for making false statements while in office<ref>https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=barack-obama</ref>.

===Osama===

−

Wikipedia praised Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama many times for killing Osama bin Laden, but they didn't even release footage of the death<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-i-wont-release-bin-laden-death-photos/</ref>. George W. Bush, however, was heavily criticized for "not killing Osama bin Laden", since Osama was not killed when Bush was President, and even though he sent soldiers to fight terrorism, they said that they weren't finding Osama bin Laden. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Bush_administration</ref> They call Osama a terrorist, which is true, but they just say this to honor [[Barack Obama]] and his liberals for "killing" terrorists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Obama_administration</ref>. They are trying to make it look like ~~that~~ the Republicans are ignoring to terrorists, and that Democrats are fighting against them. If a user reads Wikipedia, the ~~results are~~ that Bush did "nothing" to kill Osama, even though there were many attempts, in which they make Bush look "irresponsible".

+

Wikipedia praised Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama many times for killing Osama bin Laden, but they didn't even release footage of the death<ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-i-wont-release-bin-laden-death-photos/</ref>. George W. Bush, however, was heavily criticized for "not killing Osama bin Laden", since Osama was not killed when Bush was President, and even though he sent soldiers to fight terrorism, they said that they weren't finding Osama bin Laden<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Bush_administration</ref> They call Osama a terrorist, which is true, but they just say this to honor [[Barack Obama]] and his liberals for "killing" terrorists<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Obama_administration</ref>. They are trying to make it look like the Republicans are ignoring terrorists, and that Democrats are fighting against them. If a user reads Wikipedia, the result is that Bush did "nothing" to kill Osama, even though there were many attempts, in which they make Bush look "irresponsible".

===Paid editing===

See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing]]

−

In theory, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by disinterested volunteers based on reliable secondary sources. However, because Google will rank a Wikipedia article as the first result when a person searches on the article's title, public relations firms and "reputation management" companies work hard to remove any negative or controversial facts from Wikipedia articles relating to their clients. Although such paid editing is not allowed, Wikipedia does little to enforce its rules against paid editing and there are numerous examples of paid editors introducing ~~biassed~~ content on behalf of their clients. Wikipedia selectively fails to enforce its ban on paid editing when the payments come from its large donors.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/03/18/the-thin-bright-line-part-2-wikipedia-donors-feel-entitled-to-more-than-a-mug-or-a-tote-bag/|title=Wikipedia donors feel entitled to more than a mug or a tote bag|date=March 18, 2014|accessdate=April 3, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref> Many organizations that visit the WMF Headquarters also engage in undisclosed paid editing to promote themselves.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/07/06/look-whos-visiting-the-wmf/|title=Look Who Is Visiting the WMF|date=July 6, 2014|accessdate=July 17, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

+

In theory, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by disinterested volunteers based on reliable secondary sources. However, because Google will rank a Wikipedia article as the first result when a person searches on the article's title, public relations firms and "reputation management" companies work hard to remove any negative or controversial facts from Wikipedia articles relating to their clients. Although such paid editing is not allowed, Wikipedia does little to enforce its rules against paid editing and there are numerous examples of paid editors introducing biased content on behalf of their clients. Wikipedia selectively fails to enforce its ban on paid editing when the payments come from its large donors.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/03/18/the-thin-bright-line-part-2-wikipedia-donors-feel-entitled-to-more-than-a-mug-or-a-tote-bag/|title=Wikipedia donors feel entitled to more than a mug or a tote bag|date=March 18, 2014|accessdate=April 3, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref> Many organizations that visit the WMF Headquarters also engage in undisclosed paid editing to promote themselves.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/07/06/look-whos-visiting-the-wmf/|title=Look Who Is Visiting the WMF|date=July 6, 2014|accessdate=July 17, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

−

Perhaps one of the extreme examples is the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), an unaccredited business school in India. Even though the IIPM was in regulatory ~~problems~~, an editor(s) Wifione managed to keep the Wikipedia article on IIPM and its President positive while adding negative items to IIPM's competitors. Adding to the problem is that Wifione is a Wikipedia administrator. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee allowed this to continue for years before taking action.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/12/02/indian-fakers-teach-wiki-pr/|title=Indian Fakers Teach Wiki PR|date=December 2, 2013|accessdate=February 8, 2015|work=Wikipediocracy}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione|title=Wifione Case|accessdate=February 8, 2015}}</ref>

+

Perhaps one of the extreme examples is the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), an unaccredited business school in India. Even though the IIPM was in regulatory trouble, an editor(s), Wifione, managed to keep the Wikipedia article on IIPM and its President positive while adding negative items to IIPM's competitors. Adding to the problem is that Wifione is a Wikipedia administrator. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee allowed this to continue for years before taking action.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/12/02/indian-fakers-teach-wiki-pr/|title=Indian Fakers Teach Wiki PR|date=December 2, 2013|accessdate=February 8, 2015|work=Wikipediocracy}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione|title=Wifione Case|accessdate=February 8, 2015}}</ref>

In April 2017, [[Burger King]] devised a television commercial designed to trigger Google's voice-activated Home smart speaker and have the device advertise the Whopper by reading the start of the Wikipedia Whopper article.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_O54le4__I</ref> Google quickly reprogrammed the system to respond only if the user asked for the definition of a "Whopper burger." But before the fix was implemented, Wikipedia editors changed the article to include "horse meat", "cyanide",<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777717747</ref> "rat droppings", "dinosaurs" and other foul ingredients.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&oldid=777715629</ref> The project is an example of a company trying to use Wikipedia to lend credibility to a commercial product.<blockquote>It appears that Burger King itself tried to fix the Wikipedia problem. The first sentence changed to a suspiciously glowing description of the Whopper, authored by user “Fermachado123" — a name that sounds similar to Fernando Machado, Burger King's senior vice president for global brand management.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&diff=773832878&oldid=773809917</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/companies/burger-king-thought-it-had-a-great-idea-instead-it-ended-up-with-a-whopper-of-a-problem/ar-BBzMU9j?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout|title=Burger King thought it had a great idea. Instead, it ended up with a Whopper of a problem. |date=April 13, 2017|accessdate=May 16, 2017|work=Washington Post}}</ref></blockquote>

===Pornography and sexuality===

−

# English Wikipedia embeds the full-length video of ~~pornography~~ movies "Debbie Does Dallas" and "A Free Ride" in the English encyclopedia articles about those films.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/11/wikipedia_search_engine/|title=Move over, Google. Here’s Wikipedia's search engine – full of on-demand smut|date=February 11, 2016|accessdate=April 10, 2016|work=The Register}}</ref>

+

# English Wikipedia embeds the full-length video of pornographic movies "Debbie Does Dallas" and "A Free Ride" in the English encyclopedia articles about those films.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/11/wikipedia_search_engine/|title=Move over, Google. Here’s Wikipedia's search engine – full of on-demand smut|date=February 11, 2016|accessdate=April 10, 2016|work=The Register}}</ref>

# Wikipedia Commons, which collects public domain images, has drawn extensive criticism for sexually explicit material, including nude photos and photos of various acts. The editors of Wikipedia Commons have created a "Hot Sex Barnstar" to reward those people who upload particularly explicit images. When a former member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee asked to have it removed, many people opposed his suggestion.<ref>https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:The_Hot_sex_barnstar&oldid=96124965 Retrieved May 12, 2013</ref>

# The Wikipedia article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_parts_slang&redirect=no Body parts slang] had an elaborate list of definitions. It was subject to two controversial deletion debates, and finally merged into [[Slang]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang (2005)</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang_2</ref> Many of the definitions were moved to Wiktionary. The deleted article was also copied to Wikibooks.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABody_parts_slang&diff=27163440&oldid=26851206</ref>

−

#The Wikipedia article "Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)" included a section society's reaction to the soccer match, which stated that many people had uploaded video excerpts from the match to a pornography website with sexually suggestive titles. A long debate and edit war ensued over whether the explicit words should remain in the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABrazil_v_Germany_%282014_FIFA_World_Cup%29&diff=631482381&oldid=617292981</ref>

+

# The Wikipedia article "Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)" included a section, society's reaction to the soccer match, which stated that many people had uploaded video excerpts from the match to a pornography website with sexually suggestive titles. A long debate and edit war ensued over whether the explicit words should remain in the article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABrazil_v_Germany_%282014_FIFA_World_Cup%29&diff=631482381&oldid=617292981</ref>

# When the WMF Board of Directors voted to implement an image filter so that pornographic images would not be shown to children or people who wished to avoid them, Wikipedia volunteers rebelled and Fox News reported that WMF had abandoned its plans to address the problem.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/17/wikipedia-abandons-efforts-to-purge-porn-from-online-encyclopedia/|title=Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia|work=Fox News|date=Sept. 17, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref>

−

#A Wikipedia editor who edited both WP and [[Wikia]] using the same account name was caught as a child predator by a Wikia sting in July 2011. He was allowed to continue editing Wikipedia for another three years before being banned.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-finally-bans-middle-aged-pervert|title=Wikipedia finally bans middle-aged pervert|work=Examiner|date=June 30, 2014|accessdate=January 9, 2015|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

+

# A Wikipedia editor who edited both WP and [[Wikia]] using the same account name was caught as a child predator by a Wikia sting in July 2011. He was allowed to continue editing Wikipedia for another three years before being banned.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-finally-bans-middle-aged-pervert|title=Wikipedia finally bans middle-aged pervert|work=Examiner|date=June 30, 2014|accessdate=January 9, 2015|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

===Public policy in the United States===

Line 1,154: Line 1,157:

# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:

#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.

−

# The Wikipedia article on the Haymarket Riots and subsequent trial of the labor terrorists claimed, "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing. ... " A college professor who wrote a book about the trial knew that a lot of evidence was presented during the lengthy trial and tried to correct the article. His account in the ''Chronicle of Higher Education'' shows the contempt that Wikipedia holds for scholarly experts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/|title=The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia|date=February 12, 2012|accessdate=September 20, 2013}}</ref>

+

# The Wikipedia article on the Haymarket Riots and subsequent trial of the labor terrorists claimed, "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing. ... " A college professor who wrote a book about the trial knew that a lot of evidence was presented during the lengthy trial and tried to correct the article. His account in the ''Chronicle of Higher Education'' shows the contempt that Wikipedia holds for scholarly experts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/|title=The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia|date=February 12, 2012|accessdate=September 20, 2013}}</ref>

===RINOs===

Line 1,169: Line 1,172:

See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution]]

−

#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.<ref name="Wiki Dembski">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski</ref> For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.<ref name="Wiki Dembski"/> In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.<ref>http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf</ref> Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.

+

# Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.<ref name="Wiki Dembski">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski</ref> For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.<ref name="Wiki Dembski"/> In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.<ref>http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf</ref> Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.

−

#Wikipedia's article on [[dinosaurs]] contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur</ref> Additionally, for a period of time in 2016, the Wikipedia articles for ''Answers in Genesis'' and ''Creation Museum'' called the substantiated view "erroneous".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=731471041&oldid=731470641</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=731816581&oldid=731815973</ref> The wording was only removed from the articles by a bot when an image to which the wording was attached was deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=736369020&oldid=735923030</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=736368986&oldid=736368969</ref>

+

#Wikipedia's article on [[dinosaurs]] contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans, and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur</ref> Additionally, for a period of time in 2016, the Wikipedia articles for ''Answers in Genesis'' and ''Creation Museum'' called the substantiated view "erroneous".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=731471041&oldid=731470641</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=731816581&oldid=731815973</ref> The wording was only removed from the articles by a bot when an image to which the wording was attached was deleted.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=736369020&oldid=735923030</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=736368986&oldid=736368969</ref>

#Wikipedia has separate articles on many small wikis, for instance, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_History_Project LGBT History Project] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/LGBT_History_UK 6], but does not have an article on [[CreationWiki]] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/CreationWiki 45]. Articles on CreationWiki are repeatedly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CreationWiki_%282nd_nomination%29 deleted].

====Creationist Pages Deleted====

−

Wikipedia has established a recurring pattern of discriminating against [[Creationists]] by deleting their Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia maintains a project page on Creationism which is apparently used to delete the pages of Creationists,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Creationism/Article_alerts/Archive_1 Wikipedia:WikiProject Creationism/Article alerts/Archive 1.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref> ironic since it has deleted the portal page for Creationism itself.

+

Wikipedia has established a recurring pattern of discriminating against [[Creationists]] by deleting their Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia maintains a project page on Creationism which is apparently used to delete the pages of Creationists,<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Creationism/Article_alerts/Archive_1 Wikipedia:WikiProject Creationism/Article alerts/Archive 1.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref> which is ironic since it has deleted the portal page for Creationism itself.

=====Günter Bechly=====

Line 1,181: Line 1,184:

Günter Bechly, a renowned paleontologist, lost his job at a museum and had his [[Wikipedia]] page deleted after he publicly came out as a Creationist in 2015.<ref>Benjakob, O. (2017, November 17). "[https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/2017-11-17/ty-article/scientist-comes-out-against-evolution-loses-wikipedia-page/0000017f-e91d-df2c-a1ff-ff5d6afa0000 A Respected Scientist Comes Out Against Evolution – and Loses His Wikipedia Page.]" ''Haaretz.''</ref> This is part of a recurring pattern of Wikipedia deleting Creationist pages.

−

The page was deleted 19:09, October 6, 2017 by Jo-Jo Eumerus.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Bechly Günter Bechly.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

+

The page was deleted 19:09, October 6, 2017, by Jo-Jo Eumerus.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Bechly Günter Bechly.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

The old page can be seen at Archive.org.<ref>"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160926105127/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Bechly Günter Bechly Wikipedia Page, Web Archive 9/26/2016.]" ''Internet Archive.''</ref>

Line 1,189: Line 1,192:

Russell Humphreys had his page on Wikipedia deleted.

−

The page was deleted 23:25, August 20, 2024 by Liz.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys Russell Humphreys]." ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

+

The page was deleted 23:25, August 20, 2024, by Liz.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys Russell Humphreys]." ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

The old page can be seen at Archive.org.<ref>"[https://web.archive.org/web/20240814104821/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys Russell Humphreys Wikipedia Page, Web Archive 8/14/2024.]" ''Internet Archive.''</ref>

Line 1,197: Line 1,200:

Scott Minnich had his page on Wikipedia deleted.

−

The page was deleted 21:11, October 13, 2021 by Eddie891.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Minnich Scott Minnich.]" ''Wikipedia''</ref>

+

The page was deleted 21:11, October 13, 2021, by Eddie891.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Minnich Scott Minnich.]" ''Wikipedia''</ref>

The old page can be seen at Archive.org.<ref>"[https://web.archive.org/web/20210823030354/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Minnich Scott Minnich Wikipedia Page, Web Archive 8/23/2021.]" ''Internet Archive.''</ref>

Line 1,205: Line 1,208:

Jack Cuozzo had his page on Wikipedia deleted.

−

The page was deleted 06:37, April 10, 2011 by Sandstein.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Cuozzo Jack Cuozzo]." ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

+

The page was deleted 06:37, April 10, 2011, by Sandstein.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Cuozzo Jack Cuozzo]." ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

−

On 16:24, July 15, 2014 BDD deleted page Jack Cuozzo (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014).

+

On 16:24, July 15, 2014, BDD deleted page Jack Cuozzo (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014).

The old page can be seen at Archive.org.<ref>"[https://web.archive.org/web/20110330143417/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Cuozzo Jack Cuozzo Wikipedia Page, Web Archive 3/30/2011.]" ''Internet Archive.''</ref>

Line 1,215: Line 1,218:

Jan Peczkis, better known as John Woodmorappe, had his page on Wikipedia deleted.

−

The page was deleted 05:22, May 7, 2014 by FreeRangeFrog.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Peczkis Jan Peczkis.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

+

The page was deleted 05:22, May 7, 2014, by FreeRangeFrog.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Peczkis Jan Peczkis.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

An archived version of the page has not yet been identified.

Line 1,223: Line 1,226:

Caroline Crocker had her page on Wikipedia deleted.

−

The page was deleted 03:11, February 18, 2015 by Kurykh.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Crocker Caroline Crocker.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

+

The page was deleted 03:11, February 18, 2015, by Kurykh.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Crocker Caroline Crocker.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

−

The page was previously deleted 02:15, February 15, 2006 by ABCD.

+

The page was previously deleted 02:15, February 15, 2006, by ABCD.

The old page can be seen at Archive.org.<ref>"[https://web.archive.org/web/20131228062412/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Crocker Caroline Crocker Wikipedia Page, Web Archive 12/28/2013.]" ''Internet Archive.''</ref>

Line 1,233: Line 1,236:

Larry Vardiman had his page on Wikipedia deleted.

−

The page was deleted 06:22, May 27, 2020 by Spartaz.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Vardiman Larry Vardiman.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

+

The page was deleted 06:22, May 27, 2020, by Spartaz.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Vardiman Larry Vardiman.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

The old page can be seen at Archive.org.<ref>"[https://web.archive.org/web/20190807211553/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Vardiman Larry Vardiman Wikipedia Page, Web Archive 8/7/2019.]" ''Internet Archive.''</ref>

Line 1,241: Line 1,244:

Jason Lisle had his page on Wikipedia deleted.

−

The page was deleted 20:45, November 13, 2017 by Sandstein.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Lisle Jason Lisle.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

+

The page was deleted 20:45, November 13, 2017, by Sandstein.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Lisle Jason Lisle.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

−

The page was also deleted 03:18, July 19, 2010 by Courcelles.

+

The page was also deleted 03:18, July 19, 2010, by Courcelles.

−

The page was also deleted 04:02, 19 February, 2006 by Guanaco.

+

The page was also deleted 04:02, 19 February, 2006, by Guanaco.

An archived version of the page has not yet been identified.

Line 1,253: Line 1,256:

John Ashton had his page on Wikipedia deleted, although the content was placed on the Wikipedia user page of John Ashton.

−

The page was deleted 08:37, May 24, 2012 by SilkTork.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Ashton John F. Ashton.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

+

The page was deleted 08:37, May 24, 2012, by SilkTork.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Ashton John F. Ashton.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

The old page can be seen at the Wikipedia user page of John Ashton.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_J._Bulten/John_F._Ashton John F. Ashton, User Page.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

Line 1,261: Line 1,264:

The Creationism portal page was deleted.

−

The page was previously deleted 22:05, June 9, 2019 by Premeditated Chaos.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Creationism Portal:Creationism.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

+

The page was previously deleted 22:05, June 9, 2019, by Premeditated Chaos.<ref>"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Creationism Portal:Creationism.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

The old page can be seen at Archive.org.<ref>"[https://web.archive.org/web/20190609214105/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Creationism Portal: Creationism Wikipedia Page, Web Archive 6/9/2019.]" ''Wikipedia.''</ref>

Line 1,276: Line 1,279:

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

−

# From 2008 until October 2014, the Wikipedia article on the 1978-79 Boston College Basketball Point Shaving Scandal named Joe Streater as one of the participating players.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978%E2%80%9379_Boston_College_basketball_point_shaving_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=231463815</ref> However, he was not even on the team that year. He was inserted into the article by an anonymous IP address and the erroneous information was left until the press publicized the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/guilt-wikipedia-joe-streater-became-falsely-attached-boston-college-point-shaving-scandal.html/2|title=Guilt By Wikipedia: How Joe Streater became falsely attached to the Boston College point-shaving scandal|first=Ben |last=Koo|date=Oct 9, 2014 |accessdate=October 13, 2014}}</ref>

+

# From 2008 until October 2014, the Wikipedia article on the 1978-79 Boston College Basketball Point Shaving Scandal named Joe Streater as one of the participating players.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978%E2%80%9379_Boston_College_basketball_point_shaving_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=231463815</ref> However, he was not even on the team that year. He was inserted into the article by an anonymous IP address and the erroneous information was left until the press publicized the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/guilt-wikipedia-joe-streater-became-falsely-attached-boston-college-point-shaving-scandal.html/2|title=Guilt By Wikipedia: How Joe Streater became falsely attached to the Boston College point-shaving scandal|first=Ben |last=Koo|date=Oct 9, 2014 |accessdate=October 13, 2014}}</ref>

−

#Wikipedia's biographies of Scottish soccer players are so notoriously ~~biassed~~ that the new General Manager of the Hibernian Football Club, Alan Stubbs, told the press, "We can't be scouting players any more on the back of a Wikipedia page and one individual's opinion. I’ll want background checks and medical histories."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/wont-signing-players-based-wikipedia-4063573|title= We won't be signing players based on their Wikipedia descriptions anymore, says Hibs boss Alan Stubbs|date=August 17, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|first= Scott |last=McDermott|work=Daily Record}}</ref>

+

# Wikipedia's biographies of Scottish soccer players are so notoriously biased that the new General Manager of the Hibernian Football Club, Alan Stubbs, told the press, "We can't be scouting players any more on the back of a Wikipedia page and one individual's opinion. I’ll want background checks and medical histories."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/wont-signing-players-based-wikipedia-4063573|title= We won't be signing players based on their Wikipedia descriptions anymore, says Hibs boss Alan Stubbs|date=August 17, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|first= Scott |last=McDermott|work=Daily Record}}</ref>

# On December 14, 2014, the Dallas Cowboys' Dez Bryant successfully played against Eagles' defensive back Bradley Fletcher. In response, Wikipedia changed Fletcher's biography to describe his position as "Dez Bryant's bitch" and added a paragraph, which said, Fletcher "displayed his poor mechanics, speed, and talent."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.totalprosports.com/2014/12/15/bradley-fletcher-wikipedia-page/|title=Bradley Fletcher Wikipedia Page Changed After Loss to Cowboys (Pic)|date=December 15, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014|work=totalprosports.com}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=638157096&oldid=638156965</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156942</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156868</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156546</ref>

# The [[University of Pittsburgh]]'s athletic director, Steve Pederson, may be unpopular, but Wikipedia changed the infobox about its athletic program to list "Satan" as the athletic director.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cardiachill.com/2014/12/13/7386693/steve-pederson-paul-chryst-wisconsin-pitt-football-pittsburgh-panthers-athletic-director|title=Satan employed by Pitt. Per Wikipedia.|date=December 13, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014}}</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pittsburgh_Panthers&diff=prev&oldid=637798626</ref>

Line 1,284: Line 1,287:

See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conspiracy theories]]

−

#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama ''The Path to 9/11'', the page contains a section ~~titles~~ "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama ''Blocking the Path to 9/11'' [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near future. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]

+

# In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama ''The Path to 9/11'', the page contains a section titled "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama ''Blocking the Path to 9/11'' [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near future. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]

−

#The Wikipedia article "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758 List of conspiracy theories]" ridicules and dismisses as "conspiracy theories" more hypotheses advanced by conservative thinkers than hypotheses advanced by left-wing thinkers. The editor(s) of this page have an obvious liberal bias that holds in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758#Water_fluoridation Water Fluoridation] has been opposed by many conservative groups due to concerns about health impacts as well as a question of personal freedom and limits on the proper scope of government. Yet, the Wikipedia list dismisses these views as a "conspiracy theory" that draws on "distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science". In another example, [[peak oil]] is a theory advanced by many conservatives including geologists [[T. Boone Pickens]]. Yet, the page dismisses it, noting "There are theories that the 'peak oil' concept is a fraud concocted by the oil industries to increase prices amid concerns about future supplies."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758|title=List of conspiracy theories#Peak oil|date=July 28, 2012|accessdate=July 28, 2012}}</ref>

+

# The Wikipedia article "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758 List of conspiracy theories]" ridicules and dismisses as "conspiracy theories" more hypotheses advanced by conservative thinkers than hypotheses advanced by left-wing thinkers. The editor(s) of this page have an obvious liberal bias that holds in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758#Water_fluoridation Water Fluoridation] has been opposed by many conservative groups due to concerns about health impacts as well as a question of personal freedom and limits on the proper scope of government. Yet, the Wikipedia list dismisses these views as a "conspiracy theory" that draws on "distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science". In another example, [[peak oil]] is a theory advanced by many conservatives including geologists [[T. Boone Pickens]]. Yet, the page dismisses it, noting "There are theories that the 'peak oil' concept is a fraud concocted by the oil industries to increase prices amid concerns about future supplies."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758|title=List of conspiracy theories#Peak oil|date=July 28, 2012|accessdate=July 28, 2012}}</ref>

−

#The Wikipedia article "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Plan_%28Washington,_D.C.%29&oldid=478678893 The Plan (Washington, D.C.)]" is one of the conspiracy theories included on the official Wikipedia conspiracy list. However, the article cites few sources supporting the existence of the conspiracy to replace black residents with whites in Washington DC and no sources that refute the existence of the conspiracy.

+

# The Wikipedia article "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Plan_%28Washington,_D.C.%29&oldid=478678893 The Plan (Washington, D.C.)]" is one of the conspiracy theories included on the official Wikipedia conspiracy list. However, the article cites few sources supporting the existence of the conspiracy to replace black residents with whites in Washington, DC and no sources that refute the existence of the conspiracy.

−

#As of August 15, 2016, the article "[[Murder of Seth Rich]]" had a ''motion to delete'' template on it on grounds of not being notable, although at one point it was getting 1500 daily views. It was so allegedly unnotable that a strong debate was generated there on the talk page and on the Delete Articles section, where editors essentially "voted" to Keep vs. Delete, allegedly on the grounds of non-notability.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich</ref> Among the arguments for deleting the article there was a repetitious reference to the talking point "conspiracy theory," though the article said nothing at all about a conspiracy theory. Also, as of August 17, 2016, the Wiki editor who started this article, was officially blocked by an administrator. His talk page said: "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TradingJihadist</ref> As of August 21, 2016, the motion to delete was denied on grounds of no consensus, although a derogatory false comment was attached attacking some of those who argued in favor of "Keep." Soon after, the article was summarily locked down until August 27, 2016, and a request for mediation was filed.

+

#As of August 15, 2016, the article "[[Murder of Seth Rich]]" had a ''motion to delete'' template on it on grounds of not being notable, although at one point it was getting 1500 daily views. It was so allegedly unnotable that a strong debate was generated there on the talk page and on the Delete Articles section, where editors essentially "voted" to Keep vs. Delete, allegedly on the grounds of non-notability.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich</ref> Among the arguments for deleting the article there was a repetitious reference to the talking point "conspiracy theory," though the article said nothing at all about a conspiracy theory. Also, as of August 17, 2016, the Wiki editor who started this article was officially blocked by an administrator. His talk page said: "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TradingJihadist</ref> As of August 21, 2016, the motion to delete was denied on grounds of no consensus, although a derogatory false comment was attached attacking some of those who argued in favor of "Keep." Soon after, the article was summarily locked down until August 27, 2016, and a request for mediation was filed.

::Despite the fact that the article was not deleted, several details about the murder were deleted from the article by the same editors who advocated for deletion,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#List_of_excluded_items</ref> leaving the article a rather short stub article. And as of August 24, 2016, there was a continuing debate and vote on the talk page of that article as to

::"Should this article mention the fact that WikiLeaks offered $20,000 in reward money for providing information regarding the perpetrator of this crime?" along with this template warning: "{{Ds/talk notice|blp}}," which warned: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions."

Line 1,304: Line 1,307:

== Old User Bias ==

−

Many old users (2004 - 2009) ~~get~~ unfair treatment ~~against~~ newer edits, which normally means that newer users get blocked for their actions whilst old users aren't punished for bad actions, this has made people hate old users and admins for allowing OG (Slang term for old users) users to get away without punishment.

+

Many old users (2004 - 2009) receive unfair treatment for newer edits, which normally means that newer users get blocked for their actions whilst old users aren't punished for bad actions. this has made people hate old users and admins for allowing OG (Slang term for old users) users to get away without punishment.

==Vaccine Biases ==

Line 1,310: Line 1,313:

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

−

#The Wikipedia article '''Vaxxed''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaxxed&oldid=768444417] purports to be a review of ''Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe'', a 2016 American film alleging a cover-up by the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) of a possible link between the MMR [[vaccine]] and [[autism]]. In reality, this Wikipedia article is little more than a diatribe against Dr. [[Andrew Wakefield]].

+

#The Wikipedia article '''Vaxxed''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaxxed&oldid=768444417] purports to be a review of ''Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe'', a 2016 American film alleging a cover-up by the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) of a possible link between the MMR [[vaccine]] and [[autism]]. In reality, this Wikipedia article is little more than a diatribe against Dr. [[Andrew Wakefield]].

#The Wikipedia article describes Dr Wakefield as a "discredited anti-vaccine activist" but this is untrue. First, Dr Wakefield has said that he is not anti-vaccine. He is opposed to the MMR vaccine (a [[combination vaccine]]) but he is not opposed to the [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]] vaccines being given in separate doses.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3513365.stm</ref>

−

#Secondly the label "discredited" is inaccurate. Dr Wakefield and his colleague, Professor John Walker-Smith, were brought up on misconduct charges before Britain's General Medical Council (GMC) because of alleged irregularities in the conduct of their research project. Walker-Smith and Wakefield were found guilty and were struck off the medical register.

+

#Secondly, the label "discredited" is inaccurate. Dr Wakefield and his colleague, Professor John Walker-Smith, were brought up on misconduct charges before Britain's General Medical Council (GMC) because of alleged irregularities in the conduct of their research project. Walker-Smith and Wakefield were found guilty and were struck off the medical register.

#Walker-Smith, who was backed by his insurance company, successfully appealed against the ruling. The judge said that the GMC's original ruling was based on "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion". Unfortunately, Wakefield did not have backing from his insurance company so he was not able to appeal. If he had had backing, there is little doubt that he would have been cleared as well.<ref>https://healthimpactnews.com/2012/british-court-throws-out-conviction-of-autismvaccine-md-andrew-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/</ref>

−

#Several Wikipedia editors have tried to make the article more balanced but, in every case, they have been struck down by Wikipedia's elite.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaxxed/Archive_1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaxxed&oldid=759801540]

+

#Several Wikipedia editors have tried to make the article more balanced, but in every case they have been struck down by Wikipedia's elite.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaxxed/Archive_1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaxxed&oldid=759801540]

===Washington Post/Washington Times===

−

Leftist radical newspaper ''Washington Post'' is praised by Wikipedia for "winning prizes, using a fact-checker to fact-check lies", even though they make so much fun of Trump, and that it is an opinion newspaper.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#2000%E2%80%93present</ref>

+

Leftist radical newspaper ''Washington Post'' is praised by Wikipedia for "winning prizes, using a fact-checker to fact-check lies", even though they make so much fun of Trump and that it is an opinion newspaper.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#2000%E2%80%93present</ref>

−

The ''Washington Times'', however, is very heavily criticized for being white supremacist, pro-Russian, neo-Nazi, racist, anti-[atheist] science, and anti-democratic reforms, that are Communist and not even democratic.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times</ref> Again China is praised and sympathized by Wikipedia, ~~who~~ says "In January 2020, The Washington Times published two widely shared articles about the COVID-19 pandemic that suggested that the virus was created by China as a biological weapon to spread power. One article quoted a former Israeli intelligence officer as a source but offered no other verifiable evidence."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Misreporting_on_the_COVID-19_pandemic</ref> What the ''Washington Times'' was actually saying is that China is trying to use the coronavirus to spread power, but Wikipedia downplays that, and instead blames Trump and Putin, and also ~~sympathizing~~ with the Palestinians, by criticizing to the Israeli intelligence officer.

+

The ''Washington Times'', however, is very heavily criticized for being white supremacist, pro-Russian, neo-Nazi, racist, anti-[atheist] science, and anti-democratic reforms that are Communist and not even democratic.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times</ref> Again, China is praised and sympathized with by Wikipedia, which says "In January 2020, The Washington Times published two widely shared articles about the COVID-19 pandemic that suggested that the virus was created by China as a biological weapon to spread power. One article quoted a former Israeli intelligence officer as a source but offered no other verifiable evidence."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Misreporting_on_the_COVID-19_pandemic</ref> What the ''Washington Times'' was actually saying is that China is trying to use the coronavirus to spread power, but Wikipedia downplays that, and instead blames Trump and Putin, and also sympathizes with the Palestinians by criticizing the Israeli intelligence officer.

===General/Uncategorized===

Line 1,326: Line 1,329:

#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883|title=

Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers|work=National Public Radio|date=February 1, 2006|accessdate=September 20, 2012}}</ref>

−

#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate uncensored obscenity instead of education. The swear word with four letters that begin with F, is mentioned or uncensored in quotations in nearly 11,000 articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Ironically, it was once used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054|title=Michael Baumgartner|accessdate=August 27, 2012}}</ref>

+

#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate uncensored obscenity instead of education. The swear word with four letters that begin with F is mentioned or uncensored in quotations in nearly 11,000 articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Ironically, it was once used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054|title=Michael Baumgartner|accessdate=August 27, 2012}}</ref>

−

#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left-leaning [[Occupy Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the omission of the terms. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page.<ref>Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed</ref>

+

#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left-leaning [[Occupy Wall Street]] crowd. Assault is emphasized; rape is minimized by the omission of the terms. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page.<ref>Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed</ref>

# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an atheist, and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>

# The article on the [[Proud Boys]] is blatantly biased towards the Left. The first sentence falsely claims "The Proud Boys are a far-right and neo-fascist male-only organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada", despite the group trying to stop the [[liberal]]s’ [[insurrection]]. As an example of the Wikipedia admins' lack of courage in their convictions, the article is also protected so no one can change it.

Line 1,346: Line 1,349:

[[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.]]

−

A major source of bias comes from the Wikipedia pillar of "verifiability". Wikipedia proudly proclaims, "'''Verifiability, and not truth''', is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia;"<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=502902820|title=WP:Verifiability|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}</ref> There have been many attempts to change this, because when a Wikipedia editor tries to remove false content, editors who favor biased content rely upon this policy to retain the falsehoods.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability</ref> An example of such misuse ~~involve~~ radical feminists who tried to have Wikipedia state that netball was an Olympic sport<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&oldid=420754256|title=Netball at the Olympics|date=March 26, 2011|author=Laura Hale}}</ref> when, in fact, it has never been played "at the Olympics". Because they found a speech where a politician told the New South Wales Parliament that netball was "technically an Olympic sport"<ref>Parliament of New South Wales, [http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20040921018 Parliamentary Debates,] Legislative Assembly, 21 September 2004, columns 11179–11179, (Alison Megarrity).</ref> they were able to retain this false material as if it were a verified fact.

+

A major source of bias comes from the Wikipedia pillar of "verifiability". Wikipedia proudly proclaims, "'''Verifiability, and not truth''', is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia;"<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=502902820|title=WP:Verifiability|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}</ref> There have been many attempts to change this, because when a Wikipedia editor tries to remove false content, editors who favor biased content rely upon this policy to retain the falsehoods.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability</ref> An example of such misuse involves radical feminists who tried to have Wikipedia state that netball was an Olympic sport<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&oldid=420754256|title=Netball at the Olympics|date=March 26, 2011|author=Laura Hale}}</ref> when, in fact, it has never been played "at the Olympics". Because they found a speech where a politician told the New South Wales Parliament that netball was "technically an Olympic sport"<ref>Parliament of New South Wales, [http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20040921018 Parliamentary Debates,] Legislative Assembly, 21 September 2004, columns 11179–11179, (Alison Megarrity).</ref> they were able to retain this false material as if it were a verified fact.

Requiring just one source to meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard is a serious logical flaw. Any well-established fact can be contradicted by finding one obscure source somewhere on the Web, and Wikipedia will allow just one reference to overrule the majority of definitive sources saying the opposite.

Line 1,352: Line 1,355:

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 United States Census data. A standard paragraph on demographics that included 2000 Census data ~~were~~ 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.

+

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 United States Census data. A standard paragraph on demographics that included 2000 Census 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. 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.

+

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. 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 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>

+

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 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.

+

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 over 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 over 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 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>

+

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>

A few Wikipedia editors develop a dislike for the author or the subject of an article; usually, conservative authors are targeted. Rather than going through the ArticlesForDeletion procedure, such editors falsely claim that the offending author caused a "copyright violation." By doing this, they can kill an article within seven days without using ArticlesForDeletion. The author of the article is not notified that there is a "copyright violation." If the author has been blocked or banned, often on specious charges, he cannot provide a defense of the article. Sometimes the "copyright violation" is leveled even when no copyrighted material is used as a source.

−

Wikipedia is heavily oriented toward non-American countries and persons. A check of the WP obituary list each day repeatedly lists dozens of people from other ~~countries~~ than the United States. These people are mostly unknown in the USA, and many seem "non-notable" by Wikipedia's own standards of "notability." The same situation is also observable in the "Did You Know?" section on the WP main page, as foreign topics usually get top billing over American topics.

+

Wikipedia is heavily oriented toward non-American countries and persons. A check of the WP obituary list each day repeatedly lists dozens of people from countries other than the United States. These people are mostly unknown in the USA, and many seem "non-notable" by Wikipedia's own standards of "notability." The same situation is also observable in the "Did You Know?" section on the WP main page, as foreign topics usually get top billing over American topics.

==See also==

Line 1,395: Line 1,398:

* 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.

RoadtoEmmaus2

apieditor, Automoderated users, edit, ratelimit-exempt

709

edits

Changes

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)

Revision as of 05:45, October 25, 2026

Navigation menu

Search