# "Wikipedia is more one-sided than ever”: Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 18, 2021, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever-wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger/946774 "2021-07-18T22:31:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Cugel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cugel/32/1199_2.png) [@Cugel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cugel)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2021, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever-wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger/946774/41 "2021-07-21T06:08:50Z")
Also, when someone points out that e.g. person one says the earth is flat, person two says it isn’t, both viewpoints shouldn’t be given equal credence, he replies: “This is the sort of arrogant jerk behind Wikipedia today. I’m too busy to respond, but perhaps someone out there will do the honors?” ---
**Author:** ![WildaBeast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wildabeast/32/6_2.png) [@WildaBeast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WildaBeast)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2021, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever-wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger/946774/42 "2021-07-21T22:14:23Z")
> [@Cugel](#): > > Also, when someone points out that e.g. person one says the earth is flat, person two says it isn’t, both viewpoints shouldn’t be given equal credence, he replies: I haven’t seen it so much lately, but I remember at one time it seemed like a lot of Wikipedia articles had a paragraph at the end to the effect of “On other other hand, some people believe…” pretty obviously tacked on for the sake of “neutrality”. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2021, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever-wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger/946774/43 "2021-07-22T00:02:34Z")
Here’s the summary of neutrality and balance from Wikipedia; > [@](#): > > Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as _neutrality_ means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of [reliable sources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources) and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to **describe disputes, but not engage in them.** Editors, while naturally having their own [points of view](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_view_(philosophy)), should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due [weight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight). > … > Due and undue weight > > Neutrality requires that [mainspace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MAINSPACE) articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by [reliable sources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source), in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#cite_note-3) Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a “see also” to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the [Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth) does not directly mention modern support for the [flat Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth) concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give _undue weight_ to it. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2023, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever-wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger/946774/44 "2023-11-06T04:29:39Z")
Reviving this thread because of an interesting development: a political scientist has published a paper which argues that Wikipedia has become more sceptical of fringe theories and a “both sides” and “reliable sources” approach over the past 20 years; that the Neutral Point of View has become more rigorous, not in a “both sides” sense, but in increasing opposition to fringe theories, which in turn has driven away editors who supported fringe theories. As well, as I outlined upthread, Wikipedia editors have been developing more rigorous standards for what counts as a “reliable source”. As the article mentions, the watershed moment was when the Daily Mail was delisted as a reliable source, after extensive review. As I was reading it, I was struck by the similarity to the “Twice-told tales” rule that the SDMB implemented, to prevent endless threads rebutting goofy 9/11 theories, and so on. There’s a summary of the article here: > **[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-11-06/Recent research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-11-06/Recent_research)** > > A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2023, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever-wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger/946774/45 "2023-11-06T05:17:08Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > I’ve seen related articles over days or weeks in the “Did you know …” section and on investigating, sometimes found they were the product of a [Wikimedian in Residence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_residence) at a university, museum or so forth. I don’t know if that’s considered “paid editing” but the articles have been interesting. Responding to a two year old comment, but what the heck … The “Did You Know?” feature on the front page is meant to highlight new articles, by putting forward a quirky or intriguing fact in the article in hopes that a reader will say “hmm, what’s that about?” and click on the link. There’s a fairly rigorous review process, where the author of the new article nominates it, and gives proposed « hooks », the quirky statement, one of which will be selected to go on the front page. Before a “hook” is approved, it goes through two or three levels of review to ensure it’s properly sourced, accurately reflects the content of the source, and so on. Can’t be more than 200 characters long. I’ve had a few articles on DYK, and have been involved in reviewing proposed articles by other editors. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever-wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger/946774.md?page=2)