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

[CrowsNest]

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.

I'm just asking why you think other people need to make the same logical leaps you have. It appears we finally have the answer. Good. Sadly this does rather prove your previous claims about why you were refusing to answer me were convenient fictions to save yourself embarrassment and somehow make your deficiencies somehow be my fault, but at the risk of repeating myself, I really did warn you.

[Graaf Statler]

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.

I'm just asking why you think other people need to make the same logical leaps you have. It appears we finally have the answer. Good. Sadly this does rather prove your previous claims about why you were refusing to answer me were convenient fictions to save yourself embarrassment and somehow make your deficiencies somehow be my fault, but at the risk of repeating myself, I really did warn you.

That was clear to me from the frist moment. And Mink is using non-arguments. The fact is TDA can take out of the grap bag Wikipedia whatever he wants as a weapon. And that has nothing to do with where he is publishing his story, or who is reading it, what we simple don't know. CrowsNest is much closer than Ming to the real problem, the complet chaos called Wikipedia what made TDA's publication possible, and what it made it possible to make his point. So, it"s complete insane to accuse CrowsNest of trolling.

[Renée Bagslint]

I think the gist of the discussion is that there is a prevailing impression that there are more claims published of Wikipedia and/or Wikipedians having a bias towards the left than there are making the corresponding claims about bias to the right. There are several possible reasons for this, which might be true to varying degrees:

• Wikipedia and Wikipedians do actually have more of a bias to the left than to the right;
• People with a right-wing point of view (PWARWPOV) are better at spotting bias than people with a left-wing point of view (PWALWPOV);
• PWARWPOV are more highly motivated to publish examples of bias than PWALWPOV;
• Critics of Wikipedia are more likely to read articles by PWARWPOV than articles by PWALWPOV.

I wonder which is the predominant factor?

[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.

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.

Agreed on the last point, and about the implicit point of Breitbart and Fox News being a part of the extreme wacko right. I myself FWIW count myself as a moderate right who denies any attempts to be associated with Rrump.

Having said that any attempt to include all sides of any discussion, particularly if it involves at some level deeply held social or political beliefs, will maybe be more likely to give what might otherwise be called maybe undue attention to what seem to me to be the bigger variety of deeply held beliefs included under the "big tent" of the left or the US Democrats than the maybe rather smaller variety of deeply held beliefs on the American right. Or at least the smaller variety given a lot of media attention before the current administration.

[Bezdomni]

I think the gist of the discussion is that there is a prevailing impression that there are more claims published of Wikipedia and/or Wikipedians having a bias towards the left than there are making the corresponding claims about bias to the right. There are several possible reasons for this, which might be true to varying degrees:

• Wikipedia and Wikipedians do actually have more of a bias to the left than to the right;
• People with a right-wing point of view (PWARWPOV) are better at spotting bias than people with a left-wing point of view (PWALWPOV);
• PWARWPOV are more highly motivated to publish examples of bias than PWALWPOV;
• Critics of Wikipedia are more likely to read articles by PWARWPOV than articles by PWALWPOV.

I wonder which is the predominant factor?

Renée... the PWACW POW have the ball. It's on court 8 at RS:N, Is Fox News a WoPpe:RS? scroll, baby, scroll, scroll it all the way.. scroll.

[Renée Bagslint]

Renée... the PWACW POW have the ball. It's on court 8 at RS:N, Is Fox News a WoPpe:RS? scroll, baby, scroll, scroll it all the way.. scroll.

Thank you for your response but I have to say I did not understand a single word of it. Could you translate into English for us please?

[Bezdomni]

not sure. my confusion seems to be rooted in a strong feeling of fatigue due to the same names popping up all over the place. I guess I'm glad I don't have to join in any raging debates inside the wiki-coop as to whether the fox is reliable or not.

not sure why anyone would need to, really ...

The basic story: Malik deleted a reference to Fox because there were already better references provided (e.g. New Yorker). He sneezed something vaguely like tHeFoXiSeViL, and so someone took it to RS/N, where lots of people wanted to chant tHeFoXiSeViL while saying that every .news. article should be judged on its merits, etc., etc. And this goes on for pages, people throwing pies that have been aging for up to 14 years in the cellar of someone's memory.

[Renée Bagslint]

In which case, All responsible Commissionaires realise the VIP Repeal and this whole situation depends on a world tradey. Especially in Birmingold.

[Poetlister]

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!

The BBC seems to have a policy of denying the existence of terrorists. They are always described as "militants".

[Midsize Jake]

I think the gist of the discussion is that there is a prevailing impression that there are more claims published of Wikipedia and/or Wikipedians having a bias towards the left than there are making the corresponding claims about bias to the right. There are several possible reasons for this, which might be true to varying degrees:

• Wikipedia and Wikipedians do actually have more of a bias to the left than to the right;
• People with a right-wing point of view (PWARWPOV) are better at spotting bias than people with a left-wing point of view (PWALWPOV);
• PWARWPOV are more highly motivated to publish examples of bias than PWALWPOV;
• Critics of Wikipedia are more likely to read articles by PWARWPOV than articles by PWALWPOV.

I wonder which is the predominant factor?

You forgot:

• People with a "right-wing point of view" are vastly more likely to evaluate individual incidents and cases - often out of context - and then claim they represent large and far-reaching trends, movements, or entire ideologies when in fact they are usually isolated or in some way unusual;
• People with a "right-wing point of view" are vastly more likely to assume that anyone who disagrees with them in any individual case, or on any specific point, must therefore subscribe to the stereotypical left-wing ideology in it's entirety;
• People with a "right-wing point of view" are ultimately incapable of understanding any perspective other than their own, probably due (in most cases) to intense media-driven attitudinal training.
• People with a "left-wing point of view" are unfortunately either too polite or too lazy to publicize the foregoing, constantly, continually, and incessantly, in the public media, which evidently would be necessary these days to counter right-wing media narratives.

[Renée Bagslint]

These are all logically possible. Is there any evidence that any of these propositions, your or mine, are true to any significant extent? It would perhaps help the discussion if participants were to make it clear which, if any, of these factors they were proposing as significant and what their evidence was.

[Poetlister]

You forgot:

• People with a "right-wing point of view" are vastly more likely to evaluate individual incidents and cases - often out of context - and then claim they represent large and far-reaching trends, movements, or entire ideologies when in fact they are usually isolated or in some way unusual;
• People with a "right-wing point of view" are vastly more likely to assume that anyone who disagrees with them in any individual case, or on any specific point, must therefore subscribe to the stereotypical left-wing ideology in it's entirety;
• People with a "right-wing point of view" are ultimately incapable of understanding any perspective other than their own, probably due (in most cases) to intense media-driven attitudinal training.
• People with a "left-wing point of view" are unfortunately either too polite or too lazy to publicize the foregoing, constantly, continually, and incessantly, in the public media, which evidently would be necessary these days to counter right-wing media narratives.

I think I detect a left-wing bias here!

I had always regarded myself as left wing; I consistently voted Labour until Jeremy Corbyn and his fan club took over the Labour party. However, I know that very much the same criticism as Jake's can be made of some left-wingers.

[Ming]

Ming used to come out as somewhat conservative, but what with the batshit rightist nonsense and the GOP abject prostitution to big money, his assigned position these days tends to be raving Marxist.

[Bezdomni]

Reading the 5 February 2018 issue of the Signpost, and having heard that Wikipedia-land was kind of leftish, I expected to read exhortations to write articles relevant to Black History month. Already a few hours into February our own Randy from Boise was wagging his boney finger on Jimbo's page, opining -- as one does on en-wiki -- that the racial gap was even more of an unacknowledged problem than the gender gap.

Scanning the titles in the Signpost, I quickly caught one that referred to "everything black possible" and so eagerly clicked through... but only found that Cas Liber had succeeded with his nomination of Black-shouldered kite (T-H-L) for FA. Well that's not quite true, I also found that Washington State Route 520 (T-H-L) had earned a gold star. I didn't find anything about Black History month.

For a community that supposedly has such a left-wing bias, I find that strange.

Looking through the school paper more carefully, I enjoyed parts of Atsme's op-ed:

It's natural for editors to defend against a block or ban – to feel angry when they believe a situation was punitive or grossly mishandled. It is also equally as natural for an admin to maintain an opposing view by defending their actions by insisting (and believing) it was neither punitive nor mishandled.

source

These words touch home since neither Dennis Brown1 nor Goldenring have ever defended their decisions to block me for Cirt. WP:ADMINACCT is a cool story as myths go. An interesting essay on the "block log revision" question is here. I appreciate how I sometimes hear echoes of things I've talked about off-wiki on-wiki. Of course, I think the only time I've ever been mentioned on-wiki is when Geogene accused me of using TOR for some nefarious mission or another.


Moving on, I watched this sentence derail in the media-coverage section... somehow in context I could almost feel the wheels working their way off the tracks... :

Grant Shapps denies wiki mischief (previous coverage) but even if that were not the case, we are ever welcoming to critics and encourages everyone to check out the report.

source

OK ok maybe sometimes a typo is just a typo, not proof that just one moment under the cone of cognitive dissonance can temporarily clot the scribe's ink.

The highlights of the issue are probably the WMF blog story (which I'll crosspost in another thread, Renée's already mentioned the story somewhere) and the map of Wikiland (humor), which will please Graaf for the number of transmission towers border-jamming away. There's no Wikipediocracy on the map, no Signpost, Dramatica, or pinging boards, few traces of the donor class or the "influencers", but there is a very nice rendering of the Valley of Fallen Editors. The bathrobe cabal even gets a little space on the map; just as TRM (sort of a BathrobishPierre from what I understand) got featured in a friendly interview about lists...

But nobody there is talking about Black history. Maybe it's happening somewhere else? Or not. Could it be? Is WP really just posing as a left-wing media when in fact it's the RavingLoonie Centrists who are guarding the gates to Google's pastures?

Timbo...

Genderdesk has headlined that you and I are headed for a duel. I'm not sure that's exactly so: I was just answering questions, thinking about puppies and espresso, oblivious to the fact that I'd dropped my gauntlet while typing.

---

1 This is not scrupulously true. DB has said that there was a strong community will among the group of power users who'd piled on to comment on the Sagecandor case (which is not false) and that he was just there to size the noose.

[Midsize Jake]

Is WP really just posing as a left-wing media when in fact it's the RavingLoonie Centrists who are guarding the gates to Google's pastures?

It hasn't been posing as left-wing media, though. For the umpteenth time, this perception is all because of Trump, and the (mostly media-based) conditions that allowed him to "win" the 2016 "election."

As for me, I used to think of myself as a raving-loonie centrist, but since 2000-ish I've preferred the term "anti-right moderate." So yes, I will admit that to some extent my belief that right-wingers (even the seemingly "rational" ones) see anyone who disagrees with them as a "left-wing extremist" comes from personal experience of having to constantly explain that I actually don't want to impose socialism or nationalization of privately-owned essential services, or require the government to pay for abortions, or even repeal the Second Amendment... Jeez Louise, I don't even own a Che Guevara t-shirt!

[Ming]

... Jeez Louise, I don't even own a Che Guevara t-shirt!

Fascist.

[Volunteer Marek]

Per usual, TDA is full of shit.

[Volunteer Marek]

Is WP really just posing as a left-wing media when in fact it's the RavingLoonie Centrists who are guarding the gates to Google's pastures?

It hasn't been posing as left-wing media, though. For the umpteenth time, this perception is all because of Trump, and the (mostly media-based) conditions that allowed him to "win" the 2016 "election."

As for me, I used to think of myself as a raving-loonie centrist, but since 2000-ish I've preferred the term "anti-right moderate." So yes, I will admit that to some extent my belief that right-wingers (even the seemingly "rational" ones) see anyone who disagrees with them as a "left-wing extremist" comes from personal experience of having to constantly explain that I actually don't want to impose socialism or nationalization of privately-owned essential services, or require the government to pay for abortions, or even repeal the Second Amendment... Jeez Louise, I don't even own a Che Guevara t-shirt!

I'm with you there. I've always used the term "militant moderate". Sometimes it's the crazy left that you got to stand up to (ah, the days when hardcore Stalinists like User:JacobPeters used to run around attacking "Trotskyites" and the like). But lately it's been mostly the crazy right. Is there a non-crazy right left these days?

[Randy from Boise]

Timbo...

Genderdesk has headlined that you and I are headed for a duel. I'm not sure that's exactly so: I was just answering questions, thinking about puppies and espresso, oblivious to the fact that I'd dropped my gauntlet while typing.

I don't pay too much heed to bizarre misinterpretations of reality put to print by whinging, bored hobbyists who run anonymous troll sites... Pay no attention to the tendentious crazy person behind the curtain.

RfB

Oh, and lest I disappoint my obsessed fan: fuck and shit and stuff.

[Randy from Boise]

Okay, so the "Carrite Kumbaya Challenge" is sort of funny.

linkhttps://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2018/0 ... ment-38511[/link]

t

1. Ed Boyce (T-H-L) linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =824575775[/link]
2. Equality Colony (T-H-L) linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =824577619[/link]
3. Norman Wallace Lermond (T-H-L) linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =824580004[/link] — Weaksauce but I'll be back to this one this month or next.

2 starts + 23 pages for the win.

[Bezdomni]

I hate to be too demanding Mr. Boise, but I'm not seeing right off the bat what any of those three pages have to do with Black history. Also, please note this is not a bet. I will contribute 5€ to my local SPCA equivalent if you make 28 significant edits related to Black history in February or if you create 5 articles. You do not risk anything. However, pages on White labor leaders don't count, as such pages are not at all outside of the "personal comfort zone" you mentioned.

I see VM is having another coprolaliac episode. Alas, poor Marek.

[Graaf Statler]

I don't pay too much heed to bizarre misinterpretations of reality put to print by whinging, bored hobbyists who run anonymous troll sites... Pay no attention to the tendentious crazy person behind the curtain.

RfB

Oh, and lest I disappoint my obsessed fan: fuck and shit and stuff.

In my opinion she is a bid blinded, and focussed on us. Because, I complete agree with her there is much wrong in the world with the position of woman. Yesterday I saw a program about widows in Moldavia, in our Europe. Your really have no idea who they are living! In cold slums, with no food, begging on the street. Many times beaten by there man, who had died young because of alcohol. But to blame us that we are a kind of woman haters, who are defending all kind of shitheads who put there hands on the wrong place, is insane. Or that we don't want someone to write a article about a interesting woman. There are many, many very interesting woman, that is not the point. I am for instance a big fan of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The point is Wikipedia and the gender crap approach doesn't make a better Wikiepdia, and that is what WMF is claiming! I don't have any problem with a female CEO, but why for the hell the most lousy CEO on earth, Katherine Maher? I don't have any problem with a female director of WM-NL, but why for the hell a academic loser with a small, not running advice desk, and why is WMF indirect paying her 60 K a month? I think the goal of WMF is to create a new gender gap to solve the problem. Make a fool as MoiraMoira the wiki manager of WP-NL, let here doxx me, and suport here, let her and here friends break every rule of WMF, and in this way we fight that gender gap! Beat every man up you can, mistreating him mentally, and yes!, now we woman are the boss! Yes, we can! Let them feel what we felt and thank you very much donors, for our I don't know how much money you gave for our fantastic salary voor uit ons neus vreten as we say in Holland.

[Poetlister]

I hate to be too demanding Mr. Boise, but I'm not seeing right off the bat what any of those three pages have to do with Black history. Also, please note this is not a bet. I will contribute 5€ to my local SPCA equivalent if you make 28 significant edits related to Black history in February or if you create 5 articles. You do not risk anything. However, pages on White labor leaders don't count, as such pages are not at all outside of the "personal comfort zone" you mentioned.

I see VM is having another coprolaliac episode. Alas, poor Marek.

How about white religious leaders? There's a challenge for Randy.

[Randy from Boise]

I hate to be too demanding Mr. Boise, but I'm not seeing right off the bat what any of those three pages have to do with Black history. Also, please note this is not a bet. I will contribute 5€ to my local SPCA equivalent if you make 28 significant edits related to Black history in February or if you create 5 articles. You do not risk anything. However, pages on White labor leaders don't count, as such pages are not at all outside of the "personal comfort zone" you mentioned.

I see VM is having another coprolaliac episode. Alas, poor Marek.

I didn't read it as "edits to black history."

If that is the case, I owe somebody ten bucks.

I doubt there are more than half a dozen months in my entire tenure as a Wikipedian in which I've touched 28 articles significantly or made 5 starts — and this certainly ain't gonna be one of them with that tight a focus — although I might plausibly stumble into 26 random topics and will make 2 legit black history starts. I've got shit to do.

linkhttps://debsproject.org/2018/02/03/two- ... our-to-go/[/link]

t

[JCM]

You forgot:

• People with a "right-wing point of view" are vastly more likely to evaluate individual incidents and cases - often out of context - and then claim they represent large and far-reaching trends, movements, or entire ideologies when in fact they are usually isolated or in some way unusual;
• People with a "right-wing point of view" are vastly more likely to assume that anyone who disagrees with them in any individual case, or on any specific point, must therefore subscribe to the stereotypical left-wing ideology in it's entirety;
• People with a "right-wing point of view" are ultimately incapable of understanding any perspective other than their own, probably due (in most cases) to intense media-driven attitudinal training.
• People with a "left-wing point of view" are unfortunately either too polite or too lazy to publicize the foregoing, constantly, continually, and incessantly, in the public media, which evidently would be necessary these days to counter right-wing media narratives.

A few very good points, particularly the two about rightwingers thinking everything which disagrees with them isn automatically left-wing and about how agreeing with or supporting one point of what might be called left-wing thinking does not automatically make that person a leftwinger. I acknowledge that in the US to some degree the latter may not be as significant in terms of politics as it might be elsewhere, because at least so far as I remember most of the single purpose voters on democratic issues vote Democrat. And yeah the apparent collapse at least in US national politics of the centrist vote probably make the situation worse.

[Renée Bagslint]

As hypotheses that can be tested against the evidence, they are logically unexceptionable, as indeed are the four obvious mirror-image propositions. What does that evidence say?

[Poetlister]

As hypotheses that can be tested against the evidence, they are logically unexceptionable, as indeed are the four obvious mirror-image propositions. What does that evidence say?

In Alabama, an ideal right-wing candidate for senator was rejected by so many right-wing voters that the Democrat won.

United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017 (T-H-L)

I don't know why the article title has to say "United States". Which other senate could they have been voting for?

[JCM]

As hypotheses that can be tested against the evidence, they are logically unexceptionable, as indeed are the four obvious mirror-image propositions. What does that evidence say?

In Alabama, an ideal right-wing candidate for senator was rejected by so many right-wing voters that the Democrat won.

United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017 (T-H-L)

I don't know why the article title has to say "United States". Which other senate could they have been voting for?

Maybe the Alabama Senate (T-H-L)?

[Midsize Jake]

As hypotheses that can be tested against the evidence, they are logically unexceptionable, as indeed are the four obvious mirror-image propositions. What does that evidence say?

I didn't really want to get into this, other than to make it clear that we're not a right-wing website, but since you asked... you basically suggested two things, "right-wingers are better at spotting bias" and "WP critics are more likely to read right-wing articles," both of which are completely subjective/qualitative. The third one, right-wingers are "more highly motivated to publish examples of bias," I'm not going to argue with since I agree with it completely. But it's still no good as a supporting argument, because motivation only gets you so far. Since the examples of right-wing bias just keep coming at you, every moment of every day, so many that you can't possibly avoid them... if your job is to publish them, what "motivation" do you need? Just do your job and go home.

So that leaves the first one, i.e., that there really is a left-wing bias among Wikipedians. To that I would say that the longer you observe them, the more you realize that there's no way to quantify or generalize about this. Each of the half-million-or-so actual (i.e., non-stub) articles has some potential for bias, with different players and different interaction histories. Sure, you could narrow it down to what's going on now in the articles about Trump and Trump-Russia and Trump-Scandalrama. In that case I would say there's a left-wing bias, because how could there not be? Those who think Trump is a good President and didn't collude with Russia, etc., aren't editing Wikipedia; they're either iterating through their automated trolling algorithms or they're busy planning their next cross-burning. Obviously I could say, "no sane human being thinks Trump is a good President," but that's no good because it wouldn't preclude Wikipedians thinking so since numerous Wikipedians are clearly not sane, almost by definition.

If anything, I'm surprised the WP bias against Trump isn't much more pronounced - it really should be, but another thing about Wikipedians is that they pride themselves on maintaining their uniquely-defined notion of "neutrality," which basically means never admitting to having any biases. And some of them have gotten very good at hiding their biases over the years.

So I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but I think we all have to accept that Trump, whether or not he actually has any redeeming qualities, is a factor that skews everything - in the Wikipedia context, in all sorts of media contexts. You cannot honestly make valid or cogent general inferences about large groups doing "large" things based on anything they do related to him, and (I would argue) by extension, his base of support.

[Renée Bagslint]

I put forward a number of propositions, each of which might be a component of a discussion about bias on Wikipedia, and asked whether there was any evidence for them. You put forward another similar list, and I pointed out that its mirror image was yet another. Why does all or any of this come down to "you basically suggested two things, ..., both of which are completely subjective/qualitative"? You confuse advancing a proposition as a subject for investigation, and asserting a proposition as a statement. But you seem to confuse two further things. The opposite of left-wing bias might well be right-wing bias; but the opposite of bias is neutrality.

[Midsize Jake]

I put forward a number of propositions, each of which might be a component of a discussion about bias on Wikipedia, and asked whether there was any evidence for them. You put forward another similar list, and I pointed out that its mirror image was yet another. Why does all or any of this come down to "you basically suggested two things, ..., both of which are completely subjective/qualitative"? You confuse advancing a proposition as a subject for investigation, and asserting a proposition as a statement.

Come on, nobody likes sophistry. Subjective/qualitative means that relevant evidence is mostly (or all) anecdotal, often by necessity - as is often the case with Wikipedia-related matters. So while it might be fun to argue about, it isn't worth turning a perfectly good web forum into a partisan bickering contest over. (Or... is it?)

But you seem to confuse two further things. The opposite of left-wing bias might well be right-wing bias; but the opposite of bias is neutrality.

Some would say the opposite of bias is the truth, but if we admit that truth is malleable, maybe bias is unavoidable. In any event, neutrality doesn't necessarily get you at the truth either, and is often used as a means of setting up false equivalencies, "whataboutism," and "teach the controversy" scenarios, so is it any surprise that people often reject it?

Some might also be surprised to learn that I, for one, am willing to accept the idea that Wikipedians generally do the best they can to avoid bias and be "neutral." I just think "the best they can" is badly limited by the restrictions imposed by the system they're working within. The result is that they reflect the realities of the moment, and at the moment, by US Republican standards, reality has a left-wing bias. (Not good for an encyclopedia, but it certainly keeps them busy at least.)

[CrowsNest]

Trump hasn't changed the way left leaning Wikipedians approach these things, he has merely changed what they argue about. The reason for the failure to adhere to NPOV is the same as it always is. It isn't because of a lack of Trump fans to fight back, it is that the genuinely capable editors of both sides of the aisle, are far outnumbered by the left leaning editors who, through either stupidity or malice, end up dominating discussion. Their bias therefore becomes baked into Wikipedia, because it is always basically just a numbers game. Do any statistical analysis you like, this will be as obvious as an emergent trend as when they did that study looking for gendered language, the trend found being more pronounced than outside of Wikipedia.

[CrowsNest]

In what could become example number six, the Wikipedians are currently debating whether their presentation of the shithole controversy is neutral. While there's lots of detail about the denials etc, in the opening scene setting paragraph they literally say in Wikipedia's voice that he said it, right down to an exact quote. There's no way this is how Larry Sanger envisaged the NPOV in action, as he recently confirmed. But as he has also said previously, the inmates basically took over the asylum. You can't reason with people who show epic levels of dumb like this (and this is from one of the moderates).....

this comment is as well documented as anything can be that wasn't said in front of a tape recorder. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

[Bezdomni]

First, Tim. Again, you don't owe anyone anything. I just thought (and think) that genderdesk was correct to call you out on the contrast between your "pretty speech" chez Jimbo and your effective action.

I'd like to challenge all the non-black content people reading here to step out of their comfort zone a little bit during February, Black History Month, and to research and write on one or more black-themed topics. It's really not hard to do and a little effort by a lot of people can go a long way towards making Wikipedia a more complete encyclopedia.

So yeah, write something up... there's no stress, I haven't really thrown down the gauntlet. You can only win, especially if you live up to your words. Since I'm not rich, I was careful to make the challenge (somewhat) difficult for a minimal reward. And yes, an espresso here costs between 0€30 (reform school) and 2€20 (in the cafés de la bourse / on bank streets / in posh restaurants).

Why did I comment? Because when I saw your comment, my gut reaction was the same as genderdesk's because I don't see you as a big contributor in that area. And I imagine others might have thought the same thing, so it might be better not to say one thing in the swanky Jimbo-salon and do another in the street.

Who knew that Jimbo was a salonnier?

And regarding your swearing tic (which Malek and Malik seem to share), I really don't think that advances any causes either. It just confirms the stereotype of the Ugly American, ready to be outraged and brandish notcensored !! signs if they can't say a bad word, but dutifully keeping quiet about all that they know to be rotten in Dodge.

[Bezdomni]

Fox WhoPpe:RS? scroll, baby, scroll; scroll it, scroll ...

Jytdog (T-C-L) & Fyslee (T-C-L) seem to have worked out the questions for a soon-to-be-released RfC, surely headed to template:centralized drama. Go Malik! tHeFoXiSeViL! ^^

Anyone know why all the cool kids change their names? Is wikispace that hazardous? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (T-C-L)

---

edits: fixed stuff

[Randy from Boise]

First, Tim. Again, you don't owe anyone anything. I just thought (and think) that genderdesk was correct to call you out on the contrast between your "pretty speech" chez Jimbo and your effective action.

I've made the same speech the last two Februaries and have kicked out a couple articles each time. I'll do the same thing this year — and next — just not right now since I'm absolutely slamming on Volume 3 of the Debs this week (30K+ words of transcription in the can).

It takes me half a day to do a start.

t

[Malik Shabazz]

So that leaves the first one, i.e., that there really is a left-wing bias among Wikipedians. To that I would say that the longer you observe them, the more you realize that there's no way to quantify or generalize about this. Each of the half-million-or-so actual (i.e., non-stub) articles has some potential for bias, with different players and different interaction histories. Sure, you could narrow it down to what's going on now in the articles about Trump and Trump-Russia and Trump-Scandalrama. In that case I would say there's a left-wing bias, because how could there not be?

Sometimes the truth has a left-wing bias.

When one of the social media giants recently tried to set up a fact-checking mechanism, the Republicans in Congress objected because it identified many more lies and errors by Republicans than those by Democrats. Finding equal numbers of lies, or even equal rates of lies, is not evidence of even-handedness. The fact that the Republican president lied more than 2,000 times during his first 11-1/2 months in office is proof positive that that some politicians and political groups have a greater propensity toward falsehood than others. Pretending otherwise is not neutrality, it's head-in-the-sand-ism.

[Midsize Jake]

Trump hasn't changed the way left leaning Wikipedians approach these things, he has merely changed what they argue about. The reason for the failure to adhere to NPOV is the same as it always is. It isn't because of a lack of Trump fans to fight back, it is that the genuinely capable editors of both sides of the aisle, are far outnumbered by the left leaning editors...

Slow down there, big guy, you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence...?

We'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not Trumpism has changed the nature of the Wikipedia game - to me, it's glaringly obvious. Mind you, I'm not saying you're wrong about there being more left-leaning WP users and right-leaning ones; I'll gladly concede that point. What I'm saying is that even if you put numbers aside, they're (clearly, IMO) more aggressive, and more willing and confident to ignore "NPOV" and other policies, when it comes to reverting even non-Russian Trumpist users and their edits than with any group of disputants since at least the Scientology wars, and possibly since Day One.

The fact that I'm also finding it increasingly hard to blame them is just my cross to bear, I guess.

[CrowsNest]

Trump hasn't changed the way left leaning Wikipedians approach these things, he has merely changed what they argue about. The reason for the failure to adhere to NPOV is the same as it always is. It isn't because of a lack of Trump fans to fight back, it is that the genuinely capable editors of both sides of the aisle, are far outnumbered by the left leaning editors...

Slow down there, big guy, you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence...?

We'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not Trumpism has changed the nature of the Wikipedia game - to me, it's glaringly obvious. Mind you, I'm not saying you're wrong about there being more left-leaning WP users and right-leaning ones; I'll gladly concede that point. What I'm saying is that even if you put numbers aside, they're (clearly, IMO) more aggressive, and more willing and confident to ignore "NPOV" and other policies, when it comes to reverting even non-Russian Trumpist users and their edits than with any group of disputants since at least the Scientology wars, and possibly since Day One.

The fact that I'm also finding it increasingly hard to blame them is just my cross to bear, I guess.

No contradiction. The strategy is the same, it is merely the content being manipulated that is different, by and large. Not sure if they're more aggressive - a revert is still a revert, bullshit is still bullshit, a mob is still a mob - but if true, then it hardly matters, since the outcome is the same. Skewed content is still skewed content, regardless of what type of content or how aggressively they go about skewing it.

[CrowsNest]

So that leaves the first one, i.e., that there really is a left-wing bias among Wikipedians. To that I would say that the longer you observe them, the more you realize that there's no way to quantify or generalize about this. Each of the half-million-or-so actual (i.e., non-stub) articles has some potential for bias, with different players and different interaction histories. Sure, you could narrow it down to what's going on now in the articles about Trump and Trump-Russia and Trump-Scandalrama. In that case I would say there's a left-wing bias, because how could there not be?

Sometimes the truth has a left-wing bias.

When one of the social media giants recently tried to set up a fact-checking mechanism, the Republicans in Congress objected because it identified many more lies and errors by Republicans than those by Democrats. Finding equal numbers of lies, or even equal rates of lies, is not evidence of even-handedness. The fact that the Republican president lied more than 2,000 times during his first 11-1/2 months in office is proof positive that that some politicians and political groups have a greater propensity toward falsehood than others. Pretending otherwise is not neutrality, it's head-in-the-sand-ism.

This is a classic example of a left leaning Wikipedian's mindset. In their heads, this makes perfect sense - the enemy lies more than us, so by skewing Wikipedia to our views, we're noble Servants of Truth. People actual!y interested in the truth, would recognise how perverse it is to even call Trump the "Republican President". The left would probably get more credit for standing up for things most people see as universal truths, if they weren't always so keen to be casual with the truth when it suits their purposes. Truth has no agenda, that's the difference.

[Renée Bagslint]

Sometimes the truth has a left-wing bias.

When one of the social media giants recently tried to set up a fact-checking mechanism, the Republicans in Congress objected because it identified many more lies and errors by Republicans than those by Democrats. Finding equal numbers of lies, or even equal rates of lies, is not evidence of even-handedness. The fact that the Republican president lied more than 2,000 times during his first 11-1/2 months in office is proof positive that that some politicians and political groups have a greater propensity toward falsehood than others. Pretending otherwise is not neutrality, it's head-in-the-sand-ism.

No, truth is just truth. Sometimes it's more welcome to people with a left-wing point of view, and sometimes to people with a more right-wing point of view.

But your second paragraph is simply laughable. "The fact that the Republican president lied more than 2,000 times during his first 11-1/2 months in office is proof positive that that some politicians and political groups have a greater propensity toward falsehood than others." No, on its own it proves nothing of the kind. For all we know, every President of whatever stamp lies exactly the same number of times per year (isn't that the 11th Amendment?). If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means adduce it. To generalise from one politician to a group is illegitimate in itself, and of course the harder you argue that Trump is indeed exceptional in his mendacity, the more you undercut your own generalisation.

If you doubt that, let's look at the Democrat presidents Cleveland, Wilson, Kennedy and Clinton. Proof positive that some politicians and political groups have a greater propensity towards adultery than others? No, I thought not.

[JCM]

When one of the social media giants recently tried to set up a fact-checking mechanism, the Republicans in Congress objected because it identified many more lies and errors by Republicans than those by Democrats. Finding equal numbers of lies, or even equal rates of lies, is not evidence of even-handedness. The fact that the Republican president lied more than 2,000 times during his first 11-1/2 months in office is proof positive that that some politicians and political groups have a greater propensity toward falsehood than others. Pretending otherwise is not neutrality, it's head-in-the-sand-ism.

A few points. Not that any of them necessarily apply in all cases.
*1) It could in at least some cases very possible to tell the truth, in a sense, while at the same time grossly misrepresenting it. Politicians and PR people are generally pretty good at this. A favorite example of some politicians might be "An (economics) professor at (Harvard) recently said..." without addressing the point that he and his statement might have few if any supporters in academia, or "Many of my constituents say..." regarding a recent public event that was as staged as a Shakespeare play to provide him and others a basis for making that statement.
*2) I think it is a real mistake to try to generalize about dishonesty in politicians based on Rrump in the same way it would be a mistake to generalize about people from Wisconsin based on Jeffrey Dahmer. Both, to my eyes, are well outside of the mainstream of their groups, and I very much get the impression that Rrump has learned from his years as a celeb how short the memory of the public can be about celebs, and is mistakenly acting as if the press and public are as charitable to politicians. I think just about every other pol in Washington knows better than that.
*3) Maybe only tangentially, to a degree, I would love it if more people read Taleb's book "The Black Swan" and learned from it just how dishonest almost every economic projection made is even more of a "lie", in a sense, than would be someone today projecting the weather for US election day in November. Regarding economic matters, basically, everybody is more or less lying, and that doesn't change when you can quote someone in the field of "voodoo economics" making the statement for you.

[Renée Bagslint]

I admire MS's heroic assumption that this "fact-checking" mechanism was itself perfectly neutral, and that its definition of lies and errors was completely neutral. Is it conceivable that the reason for the objections was that the mechanism itself had an in-built bias? I don't say that it has, merely that there seems to be an unspoken assumption that it could not. Given that the accurate reproduction of human bias by AI has been the subject of concern and research for some years now, that seems a pretty unrealistic assumption in the absence of evidence.

[Poetlister]

I admire MS's heroic assumption that this "fact-checking" mechanism was itself perfectly neutral, and that its definition of lies and errors was completely neutral. Is it conceivable that the reason for the objections was that the mechanism itself had an in-built bias? I don't say that it has, merely that there seems to be an unspoken assumption that it could not. Given that the accurate reproduction of human bias by AI has been the subject of concern and research for some years now, that seems a pretty unrealistic assumption in the absence of evidence.

It would be very difficult for AI not to replicate the bias of its inputs. No doubt one day AI programs will be clever enough to work out things for themselves and see through tendentious articles, or in other words to be more perceptive than most people, but who knows how long that would take?

[Renée Bagslint]

No doubt our new Centre for Data Ethics will sort it all out. But we digress.

[ellie]

snip ...I would say there's a left-wing bias, because how could there not be? Those who think Trump is a good President and didn't collude with Russia, etc., aren't editing Wikipedia; they're either iterating through their automated trolling algorithms or they're busy planning their next cross-burning. Obviously I could say, "no sane human being thinks Trump is a good President,"...

I think Trump is a good President and didn't collude with Russia. I edit Wikipedia and am not busy planning my next cross-burning. I am a 50 year old American Jewish woman in a STEM field, widowed with no children. Maybe that's why I edit Wikipedia, because I truly don't have much else to do. If I were to have something more in my life, e.g. a husband and children, I might not be editing Wikipedia but that doesn't mean I would be committing hate crimes or (since I am STEM-y) fine-tuning my trolling bot algos.

If anything, I'm surprised the WP bias against Trump isn't much more pronounced - it really should be...

I am sad that you feel that way, and worried that you so vehemently state it. In order to learn more about famous political figures, I have edited biographical articles of dead people like Muammar Qaddafi and Benito Mussolini. By the time I got to the end of Qaddafi's article, I actually felt like he had been defamed. He wasn't a great guy, and I am not going to argue that he was a strong man and that's what Libya needed to keep peace. (A case could be made for that, but it isn't my point here.) This has nothing to do with Benghazi either. Every scrap and shred of allegation is quoted in that article, e.g. antique CIA and Mossad intelligence reports about his every biological function, UK and Ukraine tabloid articles about his female guards, how all other Arab nations did (or didn't) like him because of this spat or that. It is enormously long and riddled with arcane details. I wouldn't call it left-wing or right-wing bias, as much as bias in general. I don't want articles about Trump to be like that.

So that leaves the first one, i.e., that there really is a left-wing bias among Wikipedians. To that I would say that the longer you observe them, the more you realize that there's no way to quantify or generalize about this. Each of the half-million-or-so actual (i.e., non-stub) articles has some potential for bias, with different players and different interaction histories.

Despite the objections I raised above, I concur with this. Yes, it gets enormously frustrating for me to argue back and forth about every word or shade of nuance in an article in the Trump Wikiproject. I see the same four or five editors on these pages, and they are all citing HuffPo articles or WaPo's sources who quoted individuals who didn't want to be named. All my edits get reverted, or completely re-written. Regardless, I don't know how I would go about implementing some fair and generalized check for left-wing or any other bias on Wikipedia.

It would probably be helpful to have more right-wing editors, just like it would be helpful to have more women editors and more global south editors. We can't seem to make that happen though.

[Midsize Jake]

Perhaps it's unfortunate that I represent that easily-dismissed vast majority of people who think admiration of murderous fascist dictators is not particularly sane, but in any event, I apologize for using the term "cross-burning" when I should have written "cross-burning, mosque-burning, or concentration-camp ribbon-cutting ceremony."

[Renée Bagslint]

Or possibly that easily-dismissed vast majority who think that personal abuse is in some sense a substitute for rational argument, or possibly the largish majority who cannot tell the difference between abusive ranting and rational argument, or possibly the rather smaller but dangerous group who can tell the difference but prefer dishonest rhetoric to rationality?

[Poetlister]

I think Trump is a good President ... By the time I got to the end of Qaddafi's article, I actually felt like he had been defamed.

I admire someone who can see the good side of everyone. Presumably everyone does have a good side.

There is of course no doubt that Qaddafi helped the IRA to kill innocent British civilians.

[DHeyward]

Perhaps it's unfortunate that I represent that easily-dismissed vast majority of people who think admiration of murderous fascist dictators is not particularly sane, but in any event, I apologize for using the term "cross-burning" when I should have written "cross-burning, mosque-burning, or concentration-camp ribbon-cutting ceremony."

I think Trump is a good President ... By the time I got to the end of Qaddafi's article, I actually felt like he had been defamed.

I admire someone who can see the good side of everyone. Presumably everyone does have a good side.

There is of course no doubt that Qaddafi helped the IRA to kill innocent British civilians.

Is there a reading comprehension? Ellie disn't find the good in Quaddagi, only that the article was overly tedious with details that are unnecessary. It just a crappy article because when the knives came out, rational people stopped editing and it went to shit. That's about where wikipedia is with anything Trump. Rabidly anti-Trump editors seek articles, tidbits, and nonsense about everything he does. Whether an editor likes or doesn't like Trump, it's not hard to understand how crappy the articles on Trump are. The response to Elle here is pretty clear as to why as it seems some didn't get past "I think Trump is a good President" before dismissing everything she wrote.