https://districtherald.com/wikipedia-founder-says-the-project-has-abandoned-neutrality-policy-is-badly-biased/

Larry Sanger, the founder of Wikipedia says that the project has abandoned neutrality and is now “badly biased.” In a blog post on Thursday (May 14th), Sanger wrote a scathing critique of the bias at his former website. “Wikipedia’s ‘NPOV’ (Neutral Point Of View) is dead,” Sanger began, referring to the site’s neutral point of view policy.

He specifically pointed to the entries for former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump as examples.

“The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing ‘Obamagate’ story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump,” Sanger explained. “A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good. The only scandals that I could find that were mentioned were a few that the left finds at least a little scandalous, such as Snowden’s revelations about NSA activities under Obama. In short, the article is almost a total whitewash.”

The founder points out that the entry for President Trump, on the other hand, is “unrelentingly negative.”

“Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke. Just for example, there are 5,224 none-too-flattering words in the ‘Presidency’ section. By contrast, the following ‘Public Profile’ (which the Obama article entirely lacks), ‘Investigations,’ and ‘Impeachment’ sections are unrelentingly negative, and together add up to some 4,545 words—in other words, the controversy sections are almost as long as the sections about his presidency,” Sanger explains. “Common words in the article are ‘false’ and ‘falsely’ (46 instances): Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are ‘false.’ Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so, especially without attribution. You might approve of Wikipedia describing Trump’s incorrect statements as ‘false,’ very well; but then you must admit that you no longer support a policy of neutrality on Wikipedia.”

https://districtherald.com/wikipedia-founder-says-the-project-has-abandoned-neutrality-policy-is-badly-biased/ >Larry Sanger, the founder of Wikipedia says that the project has abandoned neutrality and is now “badly biased.” In a blog post on Thursday (May 14th), Sanger wrote a scathing critique of the bias at his former website. “Wikipedia’s ‘NPOV’ (Neutral Point Of View) is dead,” Sanger began, referring to the site’s neutral point of view policy. He specifically pointed to the entries for former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump as examples. >“The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing ‘Obamagate’ story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump,” Sanger explained. “A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good. The only scandals that I could find that were mentioned were a few that the left finds at least a little scandalous, such as Snowden’s revelations about NSA activities under Obama. In short, the article is almost a total whitewash.” The founder points out that the entry for President Trump, on the other hand, is “unrelentingly negative.” >“Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke. Just for example, there are 5,224 none-too-flattering words in the ‘Presidency’ section. By contrast, the following ‘Public Profile’ (which the Obama article entirely lacks), ‘Investigations,’ and ‘Impeachment’ sections are unrelentingly negative, and together add up to some 4,545 words—in other words, the controversy sections are almost as long as the sections about his presidency,” Sanger explains. “Common words in the article are ‘false’ and ‘falsely’ (46 instances): Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are ‘false.’ Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so, especially without attribution. You might approve of Wikipedia describing Trump’s incorrect statements as ‘false,’ very well; but then you must admit that you no longer support a policy of neutrality on Wikipedia.”

Register or login to comment!

[–] seanking2919 9 pts (+9|-0) (edited )

I'll never forget my experiences fussing with other Wikipedia authors back when I was there. Grayfell was an absolute dipshit to me for trying to make the Gab article there more neutral and less biased. The only places where I experienced less of that were at articles that were less heavily moderated, edited, and controversial (Example: Winrock Town Center).

I was turned off of Wikipedia early on, while contributing notable and significant new content of a nonpolitical nature. Some dipshit erases it all and we take it to the debate arbitration and faggots overruled and the article went back to being shit. Never touched it again.

Wikipedia is run by power-tripping computer dwellers, they're the only people with enough time and energy to keep up with the game (rules, regs, cabals). Like SBBH.

I think I had one experience like that when wiki was brand new and never went back. And then when that video came out of those kikes from israel saying they were invading wiki to bring balanced articles from a jewish perspective I laughed

One can tell something is wrong with Wikipedia when even looking at their crappy policies.

PS: Fuck Bbb23.

It's so deep anal in bureaucratic shit, one would easily need a day just to read through their policies, "how to" articles etc. to begin as an exemplary editor. It has very much become the thing it was meant to replace: to be a "by people, for people" knowledge database. In fact, the editing (the formatting, the infinite amount of templates) has become so hard, it already prevents the MAJORITY of people from contributing (safe guess).

Well duh! Everyone else already knew how biased they are!