Five Best Examples of Left-Wing Bias on Wikipedia in 2017

[CrowsNest]

Another poke in the eye from from The Devil.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/02/0 ... a-in-2017/

1. Instructor at Berkeley sending students on anti-Trump editing spree

2. Burying CNN’s Blackmail controversy and other scandals at the network

3. Removing evidence backing James Damore’s Google Viewpoint Diversity memo and attacking the memo’s supporters

4. Downplaying Antifa’s violent far-left tendencies

5. Enacting a “purge” of media sources critical of Russia hacking narrative

Should the five examples above be any indicator, then Wikipedia’s use as a leading example for improving the honesty and integrity of information on the Internet is minimal. Failing to address this is likely to only prompt more on the right to seek out alternatives.

[Poetlister]

I don't think that many people on here would give an article on Breitbart any credence. Someone would have to investigate each allegation carefully to see if it holds water.

The conventional wisdom is that the house POV on Wikipedia is not so much left wing as libertarian and Randist.

[Johnny Au]

I also don't find Breitbart credible, as it is a far-right website often investigated by the Southern Poverty Law Center (T-H-L).

[Ming]

Ming has gone over the five claims and found four of them essentially unjustified. They do have a point with the section in Air pollution in the United States (T-H-L) beginning (sic) "Environmental Justices and the Trump Administration", and the fellow at Berkeley was pretty blatant. But then, that's how he got banned.

[Kingsindian]

According to TDA, the article was on the front page of Breitbart for a time. It has almost a thousand comments last time I checked.

This and this old posts of mine are relevant.

----------------------

As for the article itself, I have several comments.

The article is rather well-written. TDA, with some justification, criticized one of my blog posts as "a potentially interesting topic made almost completely boring and useless". In contrast, TDA gets a fair number of good shots against worthy targets. The one I liked most was against Geogene's cringeworthy word "purge", as in "purging old sources which cast doubt on the Trump-Russia collusion story". Pro tip for Geogene: in politics, it is considered decent to hide your actions in noble-sounding rhetoric.

As for others, I have commented on many of them (when they first appeared) already in the Breitbart thread. The article does not make clear the difference between the WMF, the Wiki Ed foundation and the general volunteer population. For instance, Jytdog was the one who got the Berkeley prof banned, and he himself is excoriated in a point further down the page -- about the Google memo -- for "minimizing" evidence in favour of the memo. So is Jytdog fighting a left-wing agenda or promoting it?

The answer is: neither. Jytdog was just being Jytdog, sinking his teeth like a rottweiler (or insert appropriate breed associated with guarding stuff), into something which he thought was sub-par. The first case involved badly done COI editing by the Berkeley prof (which is Jytdog's "beat" on Wikipedia), and the second case involved updating old MEDRS sourcing -- sources which said the exact same thing as the newer sources he added. Neither case had much to do with left or right.

The rest of the cases can be summarized as "editors editing political articles have political opinions" and "partisan editors on Wikipedia try to get their opponents banned" and "left-wingers on Wikipedia tend to be better at the latter than the former". Sometimes true and sometimes important to highlight.

[CrowsNest]

Ming has gone over the five claims and found four of them essentially unjustified.

Since you're not actually a super villain whose mere word terrifies others into agreement, you should probably show your working here.

[CrowsNest]

According to TDA, the article was on the front page of Breitbart for a time. It has almost a thousand comments last time I checked.

And before someone else points it out, this is arguably more relevant than trying to establish what percentage of the article is The Truth (a difficult task since it involves attributing motives). And it doesn't take a genius to realise that if even just ten percent is true, a clear demonstration of bias in both viewpoints and outcomes, it arguably wasn't going to be worth it from the perspective of those who are consciously trying to skew Wikipedia to the left. Actions have consequences. This piece will plant enough seeds of doubt in the unbiased to cancel out the gains of the ten percent, and further rile up the right wing, the consequences of which will only reduce their chances of success at achieving even that kind of minimal gain.

[CrowsNest]

I also don't find Breitbart credible, as it is a far-right website often investigated by the Southern Poverty Law Center (T-H-L).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... er-is-one/

Even the left leaning Washington Post, in a piece written to actually defend the SPLC, describes it as "left-leaning". There's no attribution or qualification, this is their view. And yet this reliably sourced descriptor, seems to have failed to make it into Wikipedia's article on the organisation. The effect of this rank failure to adhere to NPOV, is of course to conflate basic human morality with the left.

You can ignore Breitbart all you want, but when the reason you do so also contains a pretty blatant example of Wikipedia's left wing bias, you basically lose all credibility yourself. Breitbart's model is not to prove they are right, it is to prove those who attack them are wrong. In your case, it seems they succeeded.

[Graaf Statler]

I cross post my posting from aggies board:

I have read your article, TDA, and the inks. And I have something noticed. On the talk page of Jimmy many non-Americans are giving there opinion, most times left orientated.
I hope I made clear to you and others Europe has a complete different political system. You can't compare both systems. And I consider it as very wrong and imperialistic people from other country's give Wikipedia a left bias, when it's about American politics. It is one of the many system errors of Wikipedia. It's the same as trying to installed Mac programs on a Window computer.
I can't judge over the American politics, and have not the right to intervene in you political themas. Not direct, and not through Wikipedia. I may have a opinion about it, but American politic is up to the Americans.

Second, I consider it as very wrong to discus/ look were something is posted. Only the assessed of the content is important has to be discussed, and not the medium.

[Ming]

According to TDA, the article was on the front page of Breitbart for a time. It has almost a thousand comments last time I checked.

And before someone else points it out, this is arguably more relevant than trying to establish what percentage of the article is The Truth (a difficult task since it involves attributing motives). And it doesn't take a genius to realise that if even just ten percent is true, a clear demonstration of bias in both viewpoints and outcomes, it arguably wasn't going to be worth it from the perspective of those who are consciously trying to skew Wikipedia to the left. Actions have consequences. This piece will plant enough seeds of doubt in the unbiased to cancel out the gains of the ten percent, and further rile up the right wing, the consequences of which will only reduce their chances of success at achieving even that kind of minimal gain.

Anyone who is actually "unbiased" and also even minimally informed about rightist mouthpieces knows that Breitbart is one, and their reaction on reading such an article and not checking it out is far more likely to assume that there's no real leftist bias in any of the five places, because (as you admit) the purpose of the place is to keep the base riled up. Therefore their thesis is that waling on Trump and all his works is proof of leftist thoughts, when the truth (as anyone who even occasionally looks at National Review these days can see) is that old conservatism hates him too. The average Breitbart follower is the kind of person who isn't going to check the claims out, and really, on perhaps the most important level, it's really impossible to do so: WP is just too big. But hardly anyone ever says that; except at something like this site, the reality of WP's fundamental messiness and unmanageability isn't useful to anyone's political points, so nobody every makes it.

The Wash. Post analysis of the CNN flap-of-the-moment makes the essential point: people who take Breitbart seriously are the sort of people who believe that MSM are all leftie-tainted, so they are never going to take seriously anything that takes down Brietbart. A careful, sophisticated reading of this stuff invariably shows that anything crude enough for BB readers is an oversimplification at best, to the point of misrepresentation. It is useful to Ming, and perhaps to other ostensibly thoughtful people, to check out that, yep, BB is at it again, but if you're agreeing that this is really about them, and not WP, then perhaps you and Ming have reached a rare moment of agreement.

[Ming]

Ming has gone over the five claims and found four of them essentially unjustified.

Since you're not actually a super villain whose mere word terrifies others into agreement, you should probably show your working here.

After all the long-winded citation-less meandering's you've posted? Don't even bother to ask again.

[Tarc]

I don't think that many people on here would give an article on Breitbart any credence. Someone would have to investigate each allegation carefully to see if it holds water.

The conventional wisdom is that the house POV on Wikipedia is not so much left wing as libertarian and Randist.

I still have the OP on ignore, which makes the 'ocracy ever so much more readable. Not at all surprising that an MRA cites Breitbart, it is their Mecca and bible rolled in to one. But despite the atrocious sourcing, of course the Wikipedia leans left, if "left" is defined as American liberal/left politics. "Reality has a well-known liberal bias", as it was put once.

I freely admit to having a hand in keeping a left-leaning tilt in political articles over the years. White supremacists don't get a place at the table, and there's nothing they can really do about that.

[Graaf Statler]

.....people who take Breitbart seriously are the sort of people who believe that MSM are all leftie-tainted, so they are never going to take seriously anything that takes down Brietbart. A careful, sophisticated reading of this stuff invariably shows that anything crude enough for BB readers is an oversimplification at best, to the point of misrepresentation. It is useful to Ming, and perhaps to other ostensibly thoughtful people, to check out that, yep, BB is at it again, but if you're agreeing that this is really about them, and not WP, then perhaps you and Ming have reached a rare moment of agreement.

You are making a huge mistake, Ming. Never, never generalize and underestimate your opponents! Because you have no idea who is reading there and believe the stuff or not. You think you know who is reading there, but that is something different...

[CrowsNest]

According to TDA, the article was on the front page of Breitbart for a time. It has almost a thousand comments last time I checked.

And before someone else points it out, this is arguably more relevant than trying to establish what percentage of the article is The Truth (a difficult task since it involves attributing motives). And it doesn't take a genius to realise that if even just ten percent is true, a clear demonstration of bias in both viewpoints and outcomes, it arguably wasn't going to be worth it from the perspective of those who are consciously trying to skew Wikipedia to the left. Actions have consequences. This piece will plant enough seeds of doubt in the unbiased to cancel out the gains of the ten percent, and further rile up the right wing, the consequences of which will only reduce their chances of success at achieving even that kind of minimal gain.

Anyone who is actually "unbiased" and also even minimally informed about rightist mouthpieces knows that Breitbart is one, and their reaction on reading such an article and not checking it out is far more likely to assume that there's no real leftist bias in any of the five places, because (as you admit) the purpose of the place is to keep the base riled up. Therefore their thesis is that waling on Trump and all his works is proof of leftist thoughts, when the truth (as anyone who even occasionally looks at National Review these days can see) is that old conservatism hates him too. The average Breitbart follower is the kind of person who isn't going to check the claims out, and really, on perhaps the most important level, it's really impossible to do so: WP is just too big. But hardly anyone ever says that; except at something like this site, the reality of WP's fundamental messiness and unmanageability isn't useful to anyone's political points, so nobody every makes it.

The Wash. Post analysis of the CNN flap-of-the-moment makes the essential point: people who take Breitbart seriously are the sort of people who believe that MSM are all leftie-tainted, so they are never going to take seriously anything that takes down Brietbart. A careful, sophisticated reading of this stuff invariably shows that anything crude enough for BB readers is an oversimplification at best, to the point of misrepresentation. It is useful to Ming, and perhaps to other ostensibly thoughtful people, to check out that, yep, BB is at it again, but if you're agreeing that this is really about them, and not WP, then perhaps you and Ming have reached a rare moment of agreement.

I see no reason to make the sort of logical leaps you seem to want to make about who reads Breitbart and what they take from it. Your point is no more compelling than someone arguing that because Wikipedia is widely known for its unreliability, it could never be influential in swaying people's opinions unless they are meticulously careful in how they consume it.

Did you, Ming the Mighty, ever spot that the Wikipedia article on the SPLC centre doesn't once mention the reliably sourced descriptor that they are left leaning? And do you really think if that had been pointed out in this Breitbart piece, or worse, if it were shown by them to be the result of an orchestrated campaign, it wouldn't be compelling to people who consider themselves to be of sound mind? Even if the rest of the whole article just sounds like the usual Breitbart fayre, or proved to be so on closer inspection.

[CrowsNest]

Ming has gone over the five claims and found four of them essentially unjustified.

Since you're not actually a super villain whose mere word terrifies others into agreement, you should probably show your working here.

After all the long-winded citation-less meandering's you've posted? Don't even bother to ask again.

What gave you the idea you've got any choice in the matter? Don't place the bet if you can't play the hand. I warned you. I gave you every possible chance.

[Ming]

The reliance of the SPLC as an authority is a problem in WP, and Ming has pointed it out Mingself. It's not as bad a problem as BB wants to make out, because mostly SPLC has dead-to-rights the groups it tags. After that, Ming has once again lost interest in trying to puzzle out whether you actually intend to make a point, or are engaged in some sort of particularly tedious trolling, either by design or through obscurity. Ming takes all this purely as an avocation and rejects any compunction to obey your demands.

[Graaf Statler]

No Ming. You don't argue, but make assumptions. Unsubstantiated assumptions. The fact is, the leftish wikipedia with its chaos is at the moment American's right politic best friend, and that is were it is about. And I can't blame them for that. And I told you before never underestimate your opponent. By the way, I am neutral in this matter, for the reason I have given before.

[Poetlister]

Of course, five swallows don't make a summer. It should be possible to find examples of articles that clearly do not have a left-wing bias.

[CrowsNest]

Ming takes all this purely as an avocation.

No shit. At least you're not above admitting it. Credit would be due, if you hadn't included all that other nonsense. Feel free to pick and choose what bits you feel you understand and want to reply to, but don't embarass yourself by pretending like I came in here with the aim of trolling or confusing you. If you can't handle what you began way back whenever it was you rolled that dice and presumed I was an idiot, well, you got options. They're not great options, but apparently some here think their interests are served by exercising them. More fool them.

[Bezdomni]

Given where TDA is publishing, my only quibble is with the word "best"; I continue to believe that the Sagecandor incident would have a place in that line-up of bestests, if only because of the main character's importance to the Projects' solid reputation for being balanced not-news. I'm also surprised that TDA has deemed it politic never to breathe the name Minassian in print, though the direct link between CF and WMF communications during the pre-election period was discussed off-wiki and (to some lesser degree) on in 2017. Eric Barbour's wondered about this too (though he doesn't specifically mention TDA).

[Black Kite]

Feel free to pick and choose what bits you feel you understand and want to reply to, but don't embarass yourself by pretending like I came in here with the aim of trolling or confusing you.

No comment required. Muted.

[Bezdomni]

Looks like your conjuration over an avocation of Mings woke a wake of kites, Crowsnest. Do be more careful; you're scaring the fauna!

A mischief of Mings? A murder of Mings? ...

[Randy from Boise]

TDA is a hack.

RfB

[Midsize Jake]

I'm sorry to have to say it, but Mr. Ming is right - maybe one of those five points is valid, but I wouldn't even give them that much. Frankly, the endless regurgitation of right-wing absurdities and hyper-exaggerations as the basis for insisting that media entities (including Wikipedia) that don't accept the nonsense at face value are "useless" doesn't help us here - or anybody for that matter - any more than the more traditional form of regurgitation would, if done on a constant basis.

The endless regurgitation is part of a systemic process. Obviously most Wikipedians don't want to be part of that systemic process, but some do. Wikipediocracy ultimately isn't going to be part of it either, but if it makes some of you feel better, I guess that's okay... I'm just saying, it doesn't help.

[Graaf Statler]

Of course, five swallows don't make a summer. It should be possible to find examples of articles that clearly do not have a left-wing bias.

Wikipedia is the ultimate grab bag. I think that it is not hard to find for instance five articles with a nazi bias. Or any bias you want. That's because wikipedia is not consistent, it's one big uncontrolled chaos. So, in that way you can say it's cherry picking what TDA is doing in that article. But on the other hand, he has a point. Wikipedia articles are often colored and because of that incorrect. Only it is not by one color as he is claiming, but by a countless amount of colors.

[Kingsindian]

All sources are colored. For many people, Wikipedia's big draw is precisely that it has all kinds of "colors" and the ability of anyone to draw on the canvas with their own color.

Anyway, one should be careful of confusing "bias" with a "tendency". People of course use the word "bias" for all kinds of things, but one common definition of the word is the systematic deviation from a true value. Here is one source:

Accuracy is a qualitative term referring to whether there is agreement between a measurement made on an object and its true (target or reference) value. Bias is a quantitative term describing the difference between the average of measurements made on the same object and its true value

So the definition hinges crucially on what the "true value" is. Unfortunately, the "true value" is often implied, but not stated explicitly in most "bias" discussions. Then we can have a lively debate on whether the actual value differs from the implied true value, all while the crucial question of "What is the true value?" is missed. Indeed, Accuracy in Media (T-H-L) has been doing the same shtick for almost 50 years now, hammering the "liberal media" for their bias.

For instance in the Breitbart article, it is implicitly assumed that there should exist an article "CNN Blackmail controversy" and TDA says that moving this material to the "CNN controversies" article is an example of left-wing bias, because most people who argued for moving the material were left-wingers (according to TDA). But the first point is: should an article called "CNN Blackmail controversy" exist on Wikipedia? For a Breitbart reader convinced of the irredeemable shittiness of the "liberal media", this proposition might be true, but is it for other people?

I have tried to talk with TDA about this lack of a consistent standard before, without much success in getting through: they to me and me to them.

[Zoloft]

Breitbart is a pocket of pus in the body public. TDA has talent both as a writer and polemicist.

[Graaf Statler]

All sources are colored. For many people, Wikipedia's big draw is precisely that it has all kinds of "colors" and the ability of anyone to draw on the canvas with their own color.

Anyway, one should be careful of confusing "bias" with a "tendency". People of course use the word "bias" for all kinds of things, but one common definition of the word is the systematic deviation from a true value. Here is one source:

Accuracy is a qualitative term referring to whether there is agreement between a measurement made on an object and its true (target or reference) value. Bias is a quantitative term describing the difference between the average of measurements made on the same object and its true value

So the definition hinges crucially on what the "true value" is. Unfortunately, the "true value" is often implied, but not stated explicitly in most "bias" discussions. Then we can have a lively debate on whether the actual value differs from the implied true value, all while the crucial question of "What is the true value?" is missed. Indeed, Accuracy in Media (T-H-L) has been doing the same shtick for almost 50 years now, hammering the "liberal media" for their bias.

For instance in the Breitbart article, it is implicitly assumed that there should exist an article "CNN Blackmail controversy" and TDA says that moving this material to the "CNN controversies" article is an example of left-wing bias, because most people who argued for moving the material were left-wingers (according to TDA). But the first point is: should an article called "CNN Blackmail controversy" exist on Wikipedia? For a Breitbart reader convinced of the irredeemable shittiness of the "liberal media", this proposition might be true, but is it for other people?

I have tried to talk with TDA about this lack of abefore, without much success in getting through: they to me and me to them.

Very good you made the difference between a standerd and a bias. I even wrote a essay about bias, and my conclusion is the same, there will always be a bias, but try to keep a bias as small as posible. (Sorry, it's in Dutch) I make a compere to the old taperecorder, where a small bias was needed to operate. The term bias is so often misused on Wikipedia! And you are complete right about that not consistent standard, that's the reason i called Wikipedia a grap bag, although as we can see the box of pandora had been better. Many people are searching for a certain bias on wikipedia, and start fight it without having a idea what it is. And if you can fight it at all. The best example of this is in in my opinion the complete failed bias fight of the gender crap by MWF.

[Graaf Statler]

Breitbart is a pocket of pus in the body public. TDA has talent both as a writer and polemicist.

I hope as a resident of the little brother of America I may say one time to my opinion to big brother America. You have to reform. Breitbart is a result of dissatisfaction, and Trump too. Amerika can't go on by making debts, without social reforms, without investments in it's infrastructure, denying global warming, etc. You end up like Greece in a moral and real bankruptcy
But you must do that yourself, because America is een democracy. With voting and arguments, but not with Wikipedia.
We are very close family and friends, Americans are very populair in Holland, altough we not always agree, but that is normal in a family. We reformed in the the sixties, and I think it's about time you do the same. And wikipedia is not helpful in that proces is my conclusion.

[ellie]

I also don't find Breitbart credible, as it is a far-right website often investigated by the Southern Poverty Law Center (T-H-L).

I don't find the SPLC credible, as it has begun to veer to extremes. ADL is becoming similar.

Regardless, it is true that Breitbart articles need to be checked carefully, but that doesn't mean they should be totally forbidden on Wikipedia, in my opinion.... yet they are. Just try to use one as a source and see what happens! In contrast, ThinkProgress, which is clearly partisan in a different direction, is rarely a problem.

It also depends on the article one is contributing to. For example, on FusionGPS (T-H-L), I see less anti-Trump sentiment than pro-FusionGPS sentiment, which is kind of weird.

[ellie]

... Breitbart is a result of dissatisfaction, and Trump too. Amerika can't go on by making debts, without social reforms, without investments in it's infrastructure... And wikipedia is not helpful in that process is my conclusion.

This should be something that most of us can agree upon. I say this as an American, about my own country as well as the degenerating mess that is English (and probably some but not all of) Wikipedia.

[Bezdomni]

Fusion GPS (T-H-L) ... I see less anti-Trump sentiment than pro-FusionGPS sentiment, which is kind of weird.

I went to listen to wild boar burying truffles on the talk page. (I'm not a big fan of some of the editorialists at Tablet, but this is an interesting news article.)

ellie

[Graaf Statler]

... Breitbart is a result of dissatisfaction, and Trump too. Amerika can't go on by making debts, without social reforms, without investments in it's infrastructure... And wikipedia is not helpful in that process is my conclusion.

This should be something that most of us can agree upon. I say this as an American, about my own country as well as the degenerating mess that is English (and probably some but not all of) Wikipedia.

That's what I am thinking too. Because, I think most Trump voters, Breitbart readers are decent people who want a fine school for there kids, good health care for granny, save roads, low a low crime rate, etc. Just the thinks everybody wants. They are simple disappointed in politics, and i think they have every reason to be.
But, Jimmy's Wikipedia/WMF has slowly changed in a kind of activist political movement, but is simple no alternative. Wikipedia and WMF are a tremendous mess, and if you think the English Wikipedia is a mess, you didn't have seen the Dutch Wikipedia. Why should we trust WMF more than our absolute imperfect political system? Why should we change our democratic umbrella for the absolute corrupt WMF umbrella? Give me one single reason.

[Poetlister]

TDA is a hack.

TDA has talent both as a writer and polemicist.

Where is the bias?

[Zoloft]

TDA is a hack.

TDA has talent both as a writer and polemicist.

Where is the bias?

Both RfB and I are on the ideological left: we are completely different of course. I would not speak for Randy, but I am a Robert F. Kennedy (T-H-L)-type progressive liberal.

[Graaf Statler]

Both RfB and I are on the ideological left: we are completely different of course. I would not speak for Randy, but I am a Robert F. Kennedy (T-H-L)-type progressive liberal.

That is a good description of what I am. Leave to the free market what is responsible, controle parts of that free market if necessary, and some tasks are up to the state. Marxism mixed whit iberalism. We have that system in Holland, and I have to say, it works well. We are invest a lot in alternative energy at the moment, and that's very good for our economy.
Geothermal heat, solar panels and windmills. We have found out it's a good export product. We are trying to get a leading position in the world, and I think that is wise. But you can't reach this goals with a weak gouvernement. And for sure not with WMF!!!
To give a to give example, not long ago they gave the industry (Hoogovens) free energy, because there was so much wind energy and solar power out of Germany. So successful is this approach.

[Malik Shabazz]

From personal experience, I can assure TDA and others of the left-wing bias on Wikipedia. Whenever an editor -- and for some reason, they're all unregistered or newly registered -- adds the word "terrorist" to the description of "Black Lives Matter" or a left-wing group, it is always reverted. LEFT-WING BIAS! CLEAR LEFT-WING BIAS!

[JCM]

From personal experience, I can assure TDA and others of the left-wing bias on Wikipedia. Whenever an editor -- and for some reason, they're all unregistered or newly registered -- adds the word "terrorist" to the description of "Black Lives Matter" or a left-wing group, it is always reverted. LEFT-WING BIAS! CLEAR LEFT-WING BIAS!

Part of that I think maybe somewhat reasonably is that I think maybe we might only use that word for groups o. The List of designated terrorist groups (T-H-L). And, for that list, only those groups which have been called that by some recognized group or other. Words bandied about without really clear agreed upon definitions, like that and New religious movement (T-H-L) might best be dealt with in that way.

[Johnny Au]

This is such a great irony:

An Aryan website dominated by young white Anglophone males accusing another website primarily edited by young white Anglophone males of political bias.

[Malik Shabazz]

From personal experience, I can assure TDA and others of the left-wing bias on Wikipedia. Whenever an editor -- and for some reason, they're all unregistered or newly registered -- adds the word "terrorist" to the description of "Black Lives Matter" or a left-wing group, it is always reverted. LEFT-WING BIAS! CLEAR LEFT-WING BIAS!

Part of that I think maybe somewhat reasonably is that I think maybe we might only use that word for groups o. The List of designated terrorist groups (T-H-L). And, for that list, only those groups which have been called that by some recognized group or other. Words bandied about without really clear agreed upon definitions, like that and New religious movement (T-H-L) might best be dealt with in that way.

But Fox News and Breitbart say they're terrorists, and they're sometimes cited as "reliable sources" for the groups being terrorist.

It's much easier to shout "Left-wing bias!" than it is to actually think for a few minutes.

[Ming]

No Ming. You don't argue, but make assumptions. Unsubstantiated assumptions. The fact is, the leftish wikipedia with its chaos is at the moment American's right politic best friend, and that is were it is about. And I can't blame them for that. And I told you before never underestimate your opponent. By the way, I am neutral in this matter, for the reason I have given before.

The right's best friend is the existence of the internet at all, though the emergence of "mainstream" rightist mouthpieces like the Washington Times and Fox News is a distant second. It doesn't matter at all what WP's bias is or even can be accused of being: people who follow Breitbart and WingNutDaily and so forth perhaps find WP useful as something to bash, but the actual character of the place is not particularly important, because they only read it (if they read it) to find stuff to complain about. And since their preferred sources are so bad with the truth, it's easy for them to find stuff to complain about. But the ability to stay inside the right wing echo chamber is far more important as a phenomenon.

[Randy from Boise]

TDA is a hack.

TDA has talent both as a writer and polemicist.

Where is the bias?

Both of those statements could be simultanously true.

The bias is you.

RfB

[Graaf Statler]

No Ming. You don't argue, but make assumptions. Unsubstantiated assumptions. The fact is, the leftish wikipedia with its chaos is at the moment American's right politic best friend, and that is were it is about. And I can't blame them for that. And I told you before never underestimate your opponent. By the way, I am neutral in this matter, for the reason I have given before.

The right's best friend is the existence of the internet at all, though the emergence of "mainstream" rightist mouthpieces like the Washington Times and Fox News is a distant second. It doesn't matter at all what WP's bias is or even can be accused of being: people who follow Breitbart and WingNutDaily and so forth perhaps find WP useful as something to bash, but the actual character of the place is not particularly important, because they only read it (if they read it) to find stuff to complain about. And since their preferred sources are so bad with the truth, it's easy for them to find stuff to complain about. But the ability to stay inside the right wing echo chamber is far more important as a phenomenon.

Ming is right. Although I stay with my point of view there is at the moment in America no good answer for the problems people face in there daily life. And that is in my opinion the reason for the succes of the right wing echo chambers. Because granny Clinton was also not the right answer. What America needs is a good leader, and not jimmy with his wikitribune and a corrupt Wikipedia and WMF. That is also not a answer for the right wing voters and Breitbart readers, And till the time there is a good political answer the right wing echo chambers will be successful.

[Bezdomni]

Since TDA is reading this thread, I'd like to apologize: in fact I didn't go back and check the original title of the article, which Crowsnest has changed slightly here ("Five Best Examples" instead of "Five of the Best Examples"). I therefore retract my quibble.

While I did appreciate Kingsindian's protips for Geogene, I cannot agree with him concerning his rhetoric concerning "bias". The basic meaning of "bias" is angle / slant / slope / askance. It does not mean "not true", but "having an angle". The headline may also be the responsibility of the publication.

Ellie's point about Fusion GPS is an interesting one. The last line of the lead on Thor Halvorssen (T-H-L) is:

Halvorssen testified to Congress that he was the target of a smear campaign by Fusion GPS. Halvorssen provided testimony to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in July 2017.[11][12]

Halvorssen is nowhere mentioned on the Fusion GPS page.

I would say that terms like "left-wing" and "right wing" are *almost* meaningless as long as there is no "center wing" to contrast them with. I think the article would be *almost* as worthwhile if every occurrence of "left-wing" was replaced with another adjective like "ripe / bluish / crunchy", etc. However, it being published in Breitbart, they prefer talk about "left-wing" things rather than "crunchy" things.

[CrowsNest]

Feel free to pick and choose what bits you feel you understand and want to reply to, but don't embarass yourself by pretending like I came in here with the aim of trolling or confusing you.

No comment required. Muted.

Since you ignore me every time I highlight your disgraceful conduct as a Wikipedia Administrator, I am sure I will see no practical difference.

[CrowsNest]

No Ming. You don't argue, but make assumptions. Unsubstantiated assumptions. The fact is, the leftish wikipedia with its chaos is at the moment American's right politic best friend, and that is were it is about. And I can't blame them for that. And I told you before never underestimate your opponent. By the way, I am neutral in this matter, for the reason I have given before.

The right's best friend is the existence of the internet at all, though the emergence of "mainstream" rightist mouthpieces like the Washington Times and Fox News is a distant second. It doesn't matter at all what WP's bias is or even can be accused of being: people who follow Breitbart and WingNutDaily and so forth perhaps find WP useful as something to bash, but the actual character of the place is not particularly important, because they only read it (if they read it) to find stuff to complain about. And since their preferred sources are so bad with the truth, it's easy for them to find stuff to complain about. But the ability to stay inside the right wing echo chamber is far more important as a phenomenon.

I will ask you again, what is the basis for these assumptions about who reads Breitbart and why? And kindly don't dodge the question again by pretending like I'm trolling you.

[CrowsNest]

For instance in the Breitbart article, it is implicitly assumed that there should exist an article "CNN Blackmail controversy" and TDA says that moving this material to the "CNN controversies" article is an example of left-wing bias, because most people who argued for moving the material were left-wingers (according to TDA). But the first point is: should an article called "CNN Blackmail controversy" exist on Wikipedia? For a Breitbart reader convinced of the irredeemable shittiness of the "liberal media", this proposition might be true, but is it for other people?

Anyone who is familiar with Wikipedia policy and practice should be able to spot that for a nominal topic of "CNN Blackmail controversy", the implicit assumption that it is deserving of an article is correct. Anyone familiar with Wikipedia knows that the only options then for people who don't want there to be one, is to claim it is merely ephemeral news of no lasting value (WP:NOTNEWS), or that it is better handled as part of a larger article. Anyone who is familiar with Wikipedia, the names and the trends, can see in these machinations, what the author sees.

There is bias, it is dominant, and it is affecting outcomes, along partizan lines. It is so obvious, even to casual readers who perhaps know nothing of the mechanisms, we're at the point where the people claiming there is no "there" there, that this is all just a bunch of absolute bullshit made up by the alt-right, really do need to start thinking about whether this is a winning strategy for them. For me, as has happened with many other Wikipedia issues, five or even ten years of Wikipedia's defenders and apologists calling it bullshit, followed by a scientific study which proves them wrong, would see Wikipedia's undeserved reputation as unbiased being firmly discredited, down ranked to junk bond status.

So by all means, they should absolutely carry on. And TDA should carry on alerting the readership of Breitbart that it exists, to ensure the backlash is even bigger than it would have been, both by those who happily take it as read, and those smart enough to know through their own experience that it is compelling anecdotal evidence of a real phenomena.

There will be a reckoning. Pick a side, people.

[Randy from Boise]

D'oh!

[CrowsNest]

From personal experience, I can assure TDA and others of the left-wing bias on Wikipedia. Whenever an editor -- and for some reason, they're all unregistered or newly registered -- adds the word "terrorist" to the description of "Black Lives Matter" or a left-wing group, it is always reverted. LEFT-WING BIAS! CLEAR LEFT-WING BIAS!

Part of that I think maybe somewhat reasonably is that I think maybe we might only use that word for groups o. The List of designated terrorist groups (T-H-L). And, for that list, only those groups which have been called that by some recognized group or other. Words bandied about without really clear agreed upon definitions, like that and New religious movement (T-H-L) might best be dealt with in that way.

But Fox News and Breitbart say they're terrorists, and they're sometimes cited as "reliable sources" for the groups being terrorist.

It's much easier to shout "Left-wing bias!" than it is to actually think for a few minutes.

Dare I say it, but what thinking people notice when they compare Wikipedia's covered of BLM compared to actual reliable sources, even left leaning ones, is that Wikipedia is in the grip of left wing editors, nay activists, like yourself.

It is people like you, sheer unabashed activist editors, undoubtedly, who are the reason why the BLM article literally only mentions the word terrorism once, in this passage.....

A North Carolina police chief retired after calling BLM a terrorist group.

I put it to you that given all the reliable source coverage of the whole issue of whether or not BLM are terrorists or encourage terrorists, this is unjustifiable. The article is in this respect, ironically, a total whitewash. The inevitable conclusion has to be bias.

That's your fault, your fingerprints are all over that article. You are second only to the person who got it to GA, despite this gaping violation of NPOV, which you thanked them for. Naturally. Defend yourself. If you can.

[Ming]

I will ask you again, what is the basis for these assumptions about who reads Breitbart and why?

It's sophomoric to baldly label your opponent's thesis as "assumptions", but at any rate, Ming happens to know a fair number of righty-types, including a couple who are too bat-crazy even for Alex Jones. And that's the way they roll, in Ming's experience: they dismiss everything except their own little coterie of sources, even when anyone can show they are at best misrepresenting affairs, and at worst just making crap up.