Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ideological bias on Wikipedia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ideological bias on Wikipedia at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 May 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Wikipedia High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Logic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Countering systemic bias Top‑importance

	This article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship was copied or moved into Ideological bias on Wikipedia with this edit on 05:08, 22 May 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Reliability of Wikipedia#Liberal bias was copied or moved into Ideological bias on Wikipedia with this edit on 05:08, 22 May 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Hava Mendelle (November 2, 2023). "Wikipedia at war". Spectator Australia. Retrieved November 2, 2023. Wikipedia itself notes its journalistic bias here stating that sources are predominately derived from liberal news sources.

Bias Regarding War in Israel

Multiple articles, such as “Nakba,” “Gaza Genocide,” and “State of Palestine,” are dominated by language that is controversial, vague, inflammatory, and dubious, forming part of a disinformation campaign active on social media and countered only by the most diligent sources. For example, the figure for the death count in Gaza does not mention that the Gaza Ministry of Health does not distinguish between combatants and civilians, which is a dishonest omission.

And yet our article mentions only the CAMERA controversy, suggesting, bizarrely, that Wikipedia has some kind of bias in the other direction. Kandbsoalkan (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles summarize reliable sources. Therefore, this article is a summary of reliable sources about ideological bias on Wikipedia. This is not the place to document examples you have personally found of any such bias, as that would be original research, and Wikipedia does not publish original research. If you know of reliable sources about ideological bias on Wikipedia regarding the Gaza genocide or any related topic, feel free to propose them to this talk page. Grayfell (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New paragraph added by Valjean

I'm concerned about the paragraph starting with "Wikipedia's editors seek to follow the site's policy about reliable sources, so they oppose the addition of content from unreliable sources." added by Valjean. As far as I can tell, the sources are about social media users not Wikipedia or the sources we cite. This makes me concerned about NOR issues, plus the research seems to apply only to the United States post 2016 (at a minimum this should be clarified in the text) and WP is a worldwide encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 04:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it aint just USA wikipedia but the English version of Wikipedia, since english is one of the most used international languages its impact is wider 213.233.104.90 (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources backing up your claim this only applies to the USA? Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The studies only reference US politics not any other country. Why should we assume that they are more broadly applicable when the researchers didn't study whether the same is true for French, Nigerian, or Indian politics? (t · c) buidhe 15:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]