Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ideological bias on Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ideological bias on Wikipedia at the Reference desk. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 May 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship was copied or moved into Ideological bias on Wikipedia with this edit on 05:08, 22 May 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Reliability of Wikipedia#Liberal bias was copied or moved into Ideological bias on Wikipedia with this edit on 05:08, 22 May 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Bias review[edit]
Is there a method to which pages can be reviewed for ideological bias? I feel If there was a forum to address these concerns then it could relieve a lot of debate on the subject 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:A13B:D3C6:5D5D:5078 (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's a huge topic involving editing practices at the individual article, and various policies, guidelines and noticeboards. A good place to start learning might be to watch Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for a few weeks. But this talk page is limited to discussing improving this particular article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- The scope of noticeboards is too narrow to allow for the open and transparent discussions needed to resolve the problem and/or perception of there being a problem. An open publicly accessible forum for discussing Wikipedia has been needed for a very long time. Washusama (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you know of a venue that can be used for this? Failing that, many Wikipedians have blogs: — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- The scope of noticeboards is too narrow to allow for the open and transparent discussions needed to resolve the problem and/or perception of there being a problem. An open publicly accessible forum for discussing Wikipedia has been needed for a very long time. Washusama (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- The "neutrality" policy of Wiipedia all but guarantees that articles will have an ideological bias. That's because articles will give greater space to information and views that are most strongly supported in reliable sources. So for example, articles about evolution will provide more space to material supporting the theory than to those opposing it. TFD (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is not an ideological bias because science is not an ideology. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Science as narrowly defined by the scientific method: hypothesis, observations, results – you are correct is not an ideology
- Science as commonly thought of today i.e a materialistic worldview where understanding is dominated by “consensus” which helps us determine metaphysical reality, right & wrong & influence politics: this is very much an ideology Tonymetz 💬 03:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- No it's not, and this is not a forum. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- which one? Tonymetz 💬 15:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to materialism, but the elephant in the room is that Wikipedia leans towards materialism. That needs to be in the article, it's a glaring omission. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you have good sources for it. I expect that only sources in favor of specific immaterial things - those in favor of specific religions and there fore biased against materialism as well as against other non-materialisms - will mention it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Christians + Muslims + Hindus are billions. Now, I am not saying they are right, nor am I saying they are wrong. Just that they are entitled to criticize Wikipedia. As Larry Sanger said in an YouTube interview, the religious POV of Wikipedia is that of mainline Protestantism and liberal Catholicism. Generally, I don't think that he is right about Wikipedia, but he is right about Wikipedia having such POV. And he is right that Wikipedia renders the view of the establishment—just that I think that's a feature, not a bug. So, yes, in both instances he is right about the POV, but he is wrong that that would be erroneous or mistaken. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- "Christians + Muslims + Hindus are billions." I tend to think about the spread of religion, as the spread of a disease. It keeps infecting more victims, and makes life worse for the world population. It does not give the infected any insight to the truth, or any particular reliability. Dimadick (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Christians + Muslims + Hindus are billions. Now, I am not saying they are right, nor am I saying they are wrong. Just that they are entitled to criticize Wikipedia. As Larry Sanger said in an YouTube interview, the religious POV of Wikipedia is that of mainline Protestantism and liberal Catholicism. Generally, I don't think that he is right about Wikipedia, but he is right about Wikipedia having such POV. And he is right that Wikipedia renders the view of the establishment—just that I think that's a feature, not a bug. So, yes, in both instances he is right about the POV, but he is wrong that that would be erroneous or mistaken. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you have good sources for it. I expect that only sources in favor of specific immaterial things - those in favor of specific religions and there fore biased against materialism as well as against other non-materialisms - will mention it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to materialism, but the elephant in the room is that Wikipedia leans towards materialism. That needs to be in the article, it's a glaring omission. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- which one? Tonymetz 💬 15:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- No it's not, and this is not a forum. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is not an ideological bias because science is not an ideology. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reinforcing what Hob Gadlin said, that was a bad example. In this context, bias is bias against widely held credible opinions views. In the article, it is against fringe views which conflict with reality. North8000 (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am using the term bias to mean "a tendency to prefer one person or thing to another." (Collins Dictionary) In this case, the bias is to give weight reflecting relative acceptance in reliable sources.
- Ideological bias shapes peoples' attitudes toward scientific information, and that becomes progressively so as one progresses from natural to social sciences.
- The reason articles on evolution pay little attention to creationism is entirely based on the degree of its acceptance in reliable sources. Wikipedia editors do not evaluate generally accepted beliefs, they just report them. If people in the ancient or medieval worlds had prepared an encyclopedia using Wikipedia's policies, it would have read very differently. TFD (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: I'm with you in spirit. I just think that choosing an example that involves true and false on objective matters of fact and saying that the choice is just from tallying up opinions of wp:RS's / wp:"R"S's might contribute to the problem. One can assert that the latter method is the cause of bias and scrutinizing of that by sources could be a valid part of the content of this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reinforcing what Hob Gadlin said, that was a bad example. In this context, bias is bias against widely held credible opinions views. In the article, it is against fringe views which conflict with reality. North8000 (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, and we are exercising it, consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a strong bias in favor of accuracy. How do we change this so that we can reduce accuracy to result in a better read for those whose biases only make sense given inaccuracy? O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- We are not saying this bias is bad. But we have to call it for what it is, namely a bias. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Which is why we have an article on it, but this is about a more general idea of bias policing. Which is not something we should even be discussing on this talk page, as this is not about improving this article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- We are not saying this bias is bad. But we have to call it for what it is, namely a bias. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
description of criminality[edit]
Maybe I should write this text somewhere else, but I can not find out where. Sorry for that!
Most Wikipedia articles have a good accuracy, but some of them seem to be (more or less) biased. An example is the section about "criminality" in the article below
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Kale
Some sentences in this article seem to be racist and not realistic. Even other articles seem to have similar problems.
Feel free to move what I write here to some better place! Regards! 130.238.112.129 (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not every criticism of or every inconvenient statistic for a racial minority group amounts to racism. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class Wikipedia articles
- High-importance Wikipedia articles
- WikiProject Wikipedia articles
- C-Class Alternative Views articles
- High-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class logic articles
- Low-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press