# Is Wikipedia biased? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 28, 2012, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955 "2012-01-28T05:14:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/1 "2012-01-28T05:14:47Z")
Is Wikipedia biased? If so, then what kind of bias? Political bias? Gender bias? Cultural bias? Have you ever spotted biased information, and if so, have you attempted to correct it with references? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/2 "2012-01-28T05:38:40Z")
If nothing else, it would be biased towards modern, American and European views of the world. ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/3 "2012-01-28T06:03:52Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > If nothing else, it would be biased towards modern, American and European views of the world. Yes, Wikipedia does not deny that it holds American and European views of the world, but chiefly American, since there are many American editors. The French Wikipedia would hold a French bias; the Spanish Wikipedia would hold a Spanish bias, etc. The best thing one can do is to be aware of the biases. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/4 "2012-01-28T11:40:23Z")
There are certainly biased articles at any given time. I doubt they’d add up to any consistent overall bias (say for a conservative, liberal, or religious position), aside from the extremely general cultural perspective alluded to above. There are too many individual contributors for there to be a single site-wide bias. And I’m not aware that the organisation itself has shown any bias, but if they did have one I don’t see how they’d enforce it on all those individuals. That’s unless you think that its stance of preferring facts over, say, faith-based positions is itself a bias. Perhaps the OP could explicate on what (s)he’d consider to represent ‘bias’. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/5 "2012-01-28T11:42:32Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > That’s unless you think that its stance of preferring facts over, say, faith-based positions is itself a bias. “Reality has a well known liberal bias”. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/6 "2012-01-28T11:51:50Z")
You may find these Wikipedia project pages of interest: [ul] [li][Wikipedia:Systemic bias](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias)[/li][li][WikiProject Countering systemic bias](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias)[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/7 "2012-01-28T13:05:28Z")
All mainstream encyclopedic sources of information contain a well known liberal bias. Only [conservopedia](http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page) is unbiased and tells the truth. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/8 "2012-01-28T13:20:51Z")
Wikipedia has a well known systematic bias as alluded to above. Its policy of decisions by conensus means that more numerous viewpoint tend to prevail. Furthermore as most editors are not experts in any field it is easy to link to a viewpoint which is a minority or even fringe and get its views put forward as the equal of others. They to their credit are aware of the above and have taken steps to redress it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/9 "2012-01-28T13:35:22Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > All mainstream encyclopedic sources of information contain a well known liberal bias. Only [conservopedia](http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page) is unbiased and tells the truth. [Holding onto my hat while I await the gale] ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/10 "2012-01-28T15:23:37Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > There are certainly biased articles at any given time. I doubt they’d add up to any consistent overall bias (say for a conservative, liberal, or religious position), aside from the extremely general cultural perspective alluded to above. There are too many individual contributors for there to be a single site-wide bias. And I’m not aware that the organisation itself has shown any bias, but if they did have one I don’t see how they’d enforce it on all those individuals. > > That’s unless you think that its stance of preferring facts over, say, faith-based positions is itself a bias. Perhaps the OP could explicate on what (s)he’d consider to represent ‘bias’. A bias is misinterpretation, manipulation, or exaggeration of cited information. Anything that misinterprets, manipulates, or exaggerates cited information is what I call “bias”. If there are two or more possible, well-referenced interpretations of something, then it is best to show them and characterize them. This does NOT mean, for example, treating a pseudoscience as equivalent to a science, simply because the pseudoscientific view is considered by some to be a “scientific” view. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > “Reality has a well known liberal bias”. Your quote implies that “Imagination has a well-known conservative bias,” correct? The opposite of reality is imagination: something unreal. The ideological opposite of liberal, supporting change, is conservative, impeding or resisting change. It depends on what change you mean. Let’s say that a family has set a rule for the children: do not eat cookies before supper, or your appetite will be ruined. The liberal child will probably seek to change the rule, while the conservative child questions whether such change would be beneficial and resists change. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > All mainstream encyclopedic sources of information contain a well known liberal bias. Only [conservopedia](http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page) is unbiased and tells the truth. Conservapedia is often criticized as conservatively biased, putting a conservative spin on contentious issues. It is against what it perceives as “political correctness”, and it uses non-neutral wording. If a conservative person calls abortion “murder”, then that automatically puts an emotional bias on the subject matter, because the word “murder” sends a message that the subject is cruel beyond belief and that any justification for it is justification for cruelty. Likewise, a liberal person may call abortion “pro-choice”. That is great in defining their position, but it is still biased in the fact that the word “pro-choice” sends a positive message to those who celebrates and values choice and individuality and freedom. I think the word “induced abortion” is the most accurate, neutral term to describe such a phenomenon. “Induced termination of pregnancy” would be better, since it describes what the action is rather than putting an emotional bias on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/11 "2012-01-28T15:31:45Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > Conservapedia is often criticized as conservatively biased, putting a conservative spin on contentious issues. It is against what it perceives as “political correctness”, and it uses non-neutral wordin\*\*g. If a conservative person calls abortion “murder”, then that automatically puts an emotional bias on the subject matter, because the word “murder” sends a message that the subject is cruel beyond belief \*\*and that any justification for it is justification for cruelty. . (Bolding mine) Nyet. Calling it murder sends a message that its unlawful, illegal, worthy of punishment. None of which abortion can be termed as. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/12 "2012-01-28T15:48:33Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > [QUOTE=Der Trihs] > “Reality has a well known liberal bias”. Your quote implies that “Imagination has a well-known conservative bias,” correct? [/quote] No; lies and delusions, ignorance and error. “Imagination” implies that no one is pretending that the falsehoods in question are true. > [@SDMBKL](#): > > The opposite of reality is imagination: something unreal. The ideological opposite of liberal, supporting change, is conservative, impeding or resisting change. Conservatism isn’t about resisting change; it’s about imposing their own sets of change on society. You can’t judge political groups and movements by the literal meanings of their self imposed titles; they tend to lie a lot. > [@SDMBKL](#): > > It depends on what change you mean. Let’s say that a family has set a rule for the children: do not eat cookies before supper, or your appetite will be ruined. The liberal child will probably seek to change the rule, while the conservative child questions whether such change would be beneficial and resists change. No; the “conservative child” steals the cookies and tells himself God wants him to, then beats up the “liberal child” for eating cookies. > [@SDMBKL](#): > > Conservapedia is often criticized as conservatively biased, putting a conservative spin on contentious issues. Actually, it’s more often criticized as being outright demented, a self-parody of rabid conservatism. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/13 "2012-01-28T16:04:30Z")
Ooh boy, I would never thought I would found anyone here that would even consider Conservapedia of being a recommendable thing to check. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/14 "2012-01-28T16:08:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Ooh boy, I would never thought I would found anyone here that would even consider Conservapedia of being a recommendable thing to check. I assume **Senorbeef** was being sarcastic…? ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/15 "2012-01-28T18:19:34Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > Yes, Wikipedia does not deny that it holds American and European views of the world, but chiefly American, since there are many American editors. The French Wikipedia would hold a French bias; the Spanish Wikipedia would hold a Spanish bias, etc. The best thing one can do is to be aware of the biases. Wikipedia is not just biased towards the prevailing views of western (especially American) society but towards the views of “the kind of people who edit Wikipedia”. Your average American Wikipedia editor is probably going to be slightly more intelligent, slightly more left-wing and a lot more nerdy than your average American. ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/16 "2012-01-28T18:37:55Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > Wikipedia is not just biased towards the prevailing views of western (especially American) society but towards the views of “the kind of people who edit Wikipedia”. Your average American Wikipedia editor is probably going to be slightly more intelligent, slightly more left-wing and a lot more nerdy than your average American. Being intelligent is not bias. Intelligence welcomes facts, and facts supported with well-cited resources are not biased. Being nerdy is a personal attribute, not a bias. Being more left-wing would be considered as biased as being more right-wing. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; lies and delusions, ignorance and error. “Imagination” implies that no one is pretending that the falsehoods in question are true. In essence, you claim that no one is pretending that the falsehoods are true, which implies that some persons or most persons or all persons are pretending that the falsehoods are true, and if these persons pretend that the falsehoods are true, they must know in actuality that they are false. Hold on a minute. How do “these people” know in actuality that the “falsehoods” are false in the first place? To experience the true/false duality, inherently, your claim is assuming that everyone shares the same mindset. The assumption that everyone shares the same mindset is an unsupported assumption, but rather a bigoted one. Bigotry is a case where one person adheres to one’s opinions so adamantly as to avoid counteropinions and counterviewpoints to the point that counterviewpoints have no expression, because the bigot is intolerant to those views. [QUOTE=Der Trihs] Conservatism isn’t about resisting change; it’s about imposing their own sets of change on society. You can’t judge political groups and movements by the literal meanings of their self imposed titles; they tend to lie a lot. [/QUOTE] Conservatism is not a self-imposed title. Even the Merriam-Webster dictionary would say that conservatism is “_disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage) 3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change_”. [QUOTE=Der Trihs] No; the “conservative child” steals the cookies and tells himself God wants him to, then beats up the “liberal child” for eating cookies. [/QUOTE] No, that’s a religious hypocrite, not a conservative. If a conservative wants to resist change, then he must do so unhypocritically. In other words, the conservative child would question whether the liberal child’s will to change the rule and resist the change and list his own reasons why. To set an example, the conservative child will follow what the rule dictates and claims that the liberal child’s desire for change is irrational. [QUOTE=Der Trihs] Actually, it’s more often criticized as being outright demented, a self-parody of rabid conservatism. [/QUOTE] Yes, Conservapedia has been criticized as BS, because it contains many uncited sources. It lists “evolutionary biology” as one bad career choice. Evolution is what ties all the sciences together. What rational reason is to separate evolutionary biology from the rest of biology? Nothing in biology would make sense without the light of evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/17 "2012-01-28T18:40:45Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Wikipedia has a well known systematic bias as alluded to above. \ Systemic, not systematic. Systemic means “that is an inherent by-product of a system”, systematic means “that is achieved methodically by using a defined system”. Wikipedia doesn’t set out to be biased, it just happens. Thank you, good night. \ [QUOTE=Bozuit] Wikipedia is not just biased towards the prevailing views of western (especially American) society but towards the views of “the kind of people who edit Wikipedia”. Your average American Wikipedia editor is probably going to be slightly more intelligent, slightly more left-wing and a lot more nerdy than your average American. [/QUOTE] You’d be surprised. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/18 "2012-01-28T19:11:41Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > A bias is misinterpretation, manipulation, or exaggeration of cited information. Anything that misinterprets, manipulates, or exaggerates cited information is what I call “bias”. . I agree with most of your posts on this thread plus they are easy to read and easy to understand. But I would say you are defining “bias in action” above. Bias is a tendency or inclination for a particular belief or set of beliefs and we all have them. As someone has already said the best you can do is be aware of your bias is and be willing to resist it. I think the unwritten question in the OP is. Should we use Wiki as a good source of information and/or cite? I use it as a cite only if I think it is common knowledge anyways otherwise I try to look for a site with .edu at the end and of course even that is fallible. When I research something I am not very familiar with I often use Wiki to start and then other sites to confirm. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/19 "2012-01-28T19:11:51Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > Being intelligent is not bias. Intelligence welcomes facts, and facts supported with well-cited resources are not biased. Being nerdy is a personal attribute, not a bias. You’re missing some things. Firstly my main point was that Wikipedia does not necessarily reflect the views of your average American but will be slightly skewed towards certain kinds of views. Secondly, you’re missing a lot of potential chances for bias to occur: Being intelligent is not bias but some writing by intelligent people will likely have a slight bias towards the views of intelligent people, for example, atheism has been linked to intelligence. This could not just lead to conscious anti-religious bias but also simply less coverage of religious issues as editors will tend to work on subjects that interest them and will generally have less knowledge of religion if atheist. Being nerdy can also result in bias for similar reasons. Many more people may be lining up to edit, improve and contribute to the various articles related to _Star Trek_ than _Keeping up the Kardashians_ (not that I doubt there are plenty of people working on those articles too). Also many decisions on Wikipedia - such as whether a piece of information is “noteworthy” enough to be included - are taken based on consensus which can easily lead to “nerdy” subjects getting extra coverage at the expense of others. > [@SDMBKL](#): > > Being more left-wing would be considered as biased as being more right-wing. But still biased. > [@SDMBKL](#): > > Conservatism is not a self-imposed title. Even the Merriam-Webster dictionary would say that conservatism is “_disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage) 3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change_”. Conservatives (or at least those that the vast majority of people, including the subjects themselves, would call conservatives) could and do often call for change. Lower taxes (as you quoted yourself), fewer/no abortions, more “morality”, fewer black people… the list goes on. > [@SDMBKL](#): > > No, that’s a religious hypocrite, not a conservative. If a conservative wants to resist change, then he must do so unhypocritically. In other words, the conservative child would question whether the liberal child’s will to change the rule and resist the change and list his own reasons why. To set an example, the conservative child will follow what the rule dictates and claims that the liberal child’s desire for change is irrational. I think that was a joke though… ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955/20 "2012-01-28T19:13:01Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > (Bolding mine) > > Nyet. Calling it murder sends a message that its unlawful, illegal, worthy of punishment. None of which abortion can be termed as. Depends on how you define abortion. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-biased/610955.md?page=2)