There have been lots of academic studies of wikipedia over the since its inception. A quick search on the list of academic studies page for the keyword ‘bias’ brought up Hechtl and Gergel’s 2009 study of self-focus across the several different languages. It looks like a reasonable starting point.
This.
Additionally, there seems to be a real bias when it comes to the use of sources to what’s available online as opposed to what’s actually reliable.
It tends to be biased towards the viewpoints of those who edit wikipedia and especially those with the time to edit. Some people edit away neutral views.
For example, I noticed an edit war going on between those who called the losely-veiled islamophobic but non-racist rentariot EDL “A multiethnic group from all religions who oppose radical Islamism” and “An extremist Far-Right single-issue political party”
I edited in “an anti-Islam protest group” and it was reverted, not by its supporters, but by the group that called it far right. (>,<)
Ok, so if there was some guarantee that no public money could ever be spent on abortion, would that cause to pro-life movement to drop the subject permanently?
Somehow I think not.
Well sure, but ISTM the question is whether there is a consistent pervasive bias in the site (rather than whether individual articles are biased) and if so what is that site-wide bias.
There is a bias in those articles.
Indivdsual articles are often biased, but in a haphazard, almost random way. That is, there’s no overall pattern of liberal snarkiness OR conservative religious dogmatism in the articles as a whole.
However, articles within any given subject frequently reflect the “biases” and tastesof people who are passionate and enthusiastic about that subject.
To avoid offending anyone, I’ll deliberately use a very silly, hypothetical scenario.
Let’s say that there’s a large, passionate group of people who are heavily into Australian didgeridoo music. Suppose further that there are different schools of didgeridoo fans, and each group has ardent opinions as to which style of play is best and which didgeridoo players are the true giants of the field.
The people who are MOST passionate are the ones who are going t owrite lengthy articles for Wikipedia which means the didgeridoo articles you find will be “biased” toward the artists favored by the die-hards who take the time to post.
It’s also biased towards modern, African and Asian views of the world. It really depends on what language version you’re reading.