Ideological bias on Wikipedia: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Conservapedia: the wording of this is pretty strange. it has not been met with derision simply "on the internet", it was not just its "launch" that has been met with derision, and it wasn't just one scientist who criticized it. let's just poach some verbage and sourcing from our article on conservapedia (result is a bit of a citebomb, which can probably be reduced)
→‎Claims of bias: Unless additional sources can be brought to bear, these two opinions cannot be considered representative of the academic view of the subject. It would be misleading. In other words, WP:UNDUE and there is no first-mover advantage when it comes to consensus. See WP:ONUS.
Line 20: Line 20:
===Conservapedia===
===Conservapedia===
American [[Christian right|Christian conservative]] activist [[Andrew Schlafly]] founded the [[online encyclopedia]] [[Conservapedia]] in 2006 based on his view of "[[Liberalism in the United States|liberal]] bias" on Wikipedia, which he also described as "increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American".<ref name="Guardian1">{{cite news |last1=Johnson |first1=Bobbie |title=Rightwing website challenges 'liberal bias' of Wikipedia |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/mar/01/wikipedia.news |accessdate=5 June 2018 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=March 1, 2007}}</ref> He said that he "found that the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views" and that "facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored", that some articles use British English, and that Christianity is not given credit for the [[Renaissance]].<ref name="Guardian2">{{Cite news |url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/mar/02/wikipedia.news |title=Conservapedia - the U.S. religious right's answer to Wikipedia |last=Johnson |first=Bobbie |date=March 2, 2007|access-date=2018-06-02 |language=en}}</ref> Conservapedia has itself received negative reactions from the [[mainstream media]], political figures, journalists, and scientists for its bias and factual inaccuracies.<ref name="NYTimes">{{cite news |last=Zeller |first=Shawn |title=Conservapedia: See Under "Right" |url=https://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/03/05/cq_2356.html |work=The New York Times |date=March 5, 2007}}</ref><ref name="wired">{{cite news |last=Calore |first=Michael |url=https://www.wired.com/2007/02/what-would-jesus-wiki/ |title=What Would Jesus Wiki? |work=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] |date=February 28, 2007}}</ref><ref name="The Star">{{cite news |last=Chung |first =Andrew |url=https://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501 |title=A U.S. conservative wants to set Wikipedia right |work=Toronto Star|date=March 11, 2007</ref><ref name="Clarke">{{cite web|last=Clarke|first=conor|date=March 1, 2007|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/mar/01/afactofonesown1|title=A fact of one's own|work=The Guardian}}</ref><ref name="Metro">{{cite web |url=http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=41802&in_page_id=2 |title=Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes|date=March 19, 2007 |work=[[Metro (British newspaper)|Metro]]}}</ref><ref name="Guardian1" /><ref name="Anderson">{{Cite news |first1=Nate |last1=Anderson |url=https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/03/conservapedia-hopes-to-fix-wikipedias-liberal-bias/ |title=Conservapedia hopes to "fix" Wikipedia's "liberal bias" |work=[[Ars Technica]] |date=March 4, 2007 |access-date=2018-06-02 |language=en-us}}</ref><ref name="Timmer">{{cite news |last1=Timmer |first1=John |authorlink1=John Timmer |title=Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount |url=https://arstechnica.com/features/2008/06/conservapedias-evolutionary-foibles/ |accessdate=4 June 2018 |work=[[Ars Technica]] |date=June 30, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Michael |last=Marshall |url= https://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/06/creationist-critics-get-their.html |title=Creationist critics get their comeuppance |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160602052500/https://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/06/creationist-critics-get-their.html | archive-date=June 2, 2016 |work=[[New Scientist]] |date=June 25, 2008 |accessdate=June 3, 2018}}</ref><ref name="Arthur">{{cite news |last1=Arthur |first1=Charles |title=Conservapedia has a little hangup over evolution |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2008/jul/01/conservapediahasalittlehan |accessdate=4 June 2018 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=July 1, 2008}}</ref><ref name="Dawkins">{{cite book |last1=Dawkins |first1=Richard |authorlink1=Richard Dawkins |title=[[The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution]] |date=2009 |publisher=[[Simon and Schuster]] |isbn=978-1-4165-9478-9 |chapter=Chapter 5. Before our very eyes |page=131 |lccn=2009025330}}</ref>
American [[Christian right|Christian conservative]] activist [[Andrew Schlafly]] founded the [[online encyclopedia]] [[Conservapedia]] in 2006 based on his view of "[[Liberalism in the United States|liberal]] bias" on Wikipedia, which he also described as "increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American".<ref name="Guardian1">{{cite news |last1=Johnson |first1=Bobbie |title=Rightwing website challenges 'liberal bias' of Wikipedia |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/mar/01/wikipedia.news |accessdate=5 June 2018 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=March 1, 2007}}</ref> He said that he "found that the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views" and that "facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored", that some articles use British English, and that Christianity is not given credit for the [[Renaissance]].<ref name="Guardian2">{{Cite news |url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/mar/02/wikipedia.news |title=Conservapedia - the U.S. religious right's answer to Wikipedia |last=Johnson |first=Bobbie |date=March 2, 2007|access-date=2018-06-02 |language=en}}</ref> Conservapedia has itself received negative reactions from the [[mainstream media]], political figures, journalists, and scientists for its bias and factual inaccuracies.<ref name="NYTimes">{{cite news |last=Zeller |first=Shawn |title=Conservapedia: See Under "Right" |url=https://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/03/05/cq_2356.html |work=The New York Times |date=March 5, 2007}}</ref><ref name="wired">{{cite news |last=Calore |first=Michael |url=https://www.wired.com/2007/02/what-would-jesus-wiki/ |title=What Would Jesus Wiki? |work=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] |date=February 28, 2007}}</ref><ref name="The Star">{{cite news |last=Chung |first =Andrew |url=https://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501 |title=A U.S. conservative wants to set Wikipedia right |work=Toronto Star|date=March 11, 2007</ref><ref name="Clarke">{{cite web|last=Clarke|first=conor|date=March 1, 2007|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/mar/01/afactofonesown1|title=A fact of one's own|work=The Guardian}}</ref><ref name="Metro">{{cite web |url=http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=41802&in_page_id=2 |title=Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes|date=March 19, 2007 |work=[[Metro (British newspaper)|Metro]]}}</ref><ref name="Guardian1" /><ref name="Anderson">{{Cite news |first1=Nate |last1=Anderson |url=https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/03/conservapedia-hopes-to-fix-wikipedias-liberal-bias/ |title=Conservapedia hopes to "fix" Wikipedia's "liberal bias" |work=[[Ars Technica]] |date=March 4, 2007 |access-date=2018-06-02 |language=en-us}}</ref><ref name="Timmer">{{cite news |last1=Timmer |first1=John |authorlink1=John Timmer |title=Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount |url=https://arstechnica.com/features/2008/06/conservapedias-evolutionary-foibles/ |accessdate=4 June 2018 |work=[[Ars Technica]] |date=June 30, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Michael |last=Marshall |url= https://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/06/creationist-critics-get-their.html |title=Creationist critics get their comeuppance |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160602052500/https://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/06/creationist-critics-get-their.html | archive-date=June 2, 2016 |work=[[New Scientist]] |date=June 25, 2008 |accessdate=June 3, 2018}}</ref><ref name="Arthur">{{cite news |last1=Arthur |first1=Charles |title=Conservapedia has a little hangup over evolution |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2008/jul/01/conservapediahasalittlehan |accessdate=4 June 2018 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=July 1, 2008}}</ref><ref name="Dawkins">{{cite book |last1=Dawkins |first1=Richard |authorlink1=Richard Dawkins |title=[[The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution]] |date=2009 |publisher=[[Simon and Schuster]] |isbn=978-1-4165-9478-9 |chapter=Chapter 5. Before our very eyes |page=131 |lccn=2009025330}}</ref>

===Academic views===
{{npov section}}
In 2011, Maurice Hall, an associate professor at [[Villanova University]] in the U.S., stated "that the information can be skewed in directions of ideology or other forms of bias, and so that is why it cannot be taken as a final authority."<ref name="Burnsed">{{cite news |last1=Burnsed |first1=Brian |title=Wikipedia Gradually Accepted in College Classrooms |url=https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/06/20/wikipedia-gradually-accepted-in-college-classrooms |accessdate=2 June 2018 |work=[[U.S. News & World Report]] |date=June 20, 2011}}</ref> Sorin Adam Matei, a professor at [[Purdue University]], said in 2018 that, "(f)or certain political topics, there's a [[centre-left|central-left]] bias. There's also a slight, when it comes to more political topics, counter-cultural bias. It's not across the board, and it's not for all things."<ref name="Wired-Matsakis">{{cite news |last=Matsakis |first=Louise |url=https://www.wired.com/story/youtube-wikipedia-content-moderation-internet/ |title=Don't Ask Wikipedia to Cure the Internet |work=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] |date=March 16, 2018 |accessdate=May 22, 2018}}</ref>


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 13:26, 16 June 2018

Questions about ideological bias on Wikipedia are reflected in academic analysis and public criticism of Wikipedia, and especially its English-language site, in relation to whether or not its content is biased due to the political, religious, or other epistemological ideology of its volunteer Wikipedia editors and any effect it may have on the reliability of the online encyclopedia.[1][2] Wikipedia has internal policy which states that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been verifiably published by reliable sources on a topic.[a][3]

Academic studies have examined article content, as well as the demographics of contributors, and the nature of their preferences and interactions. Collectively, findings show that Wikipedia articles edited by large numbers of editors with opposing ideological views are at least as neutral as other similar sources, but articles with fewer edits by a smaller number of ideologically homogeneous contributors were more likely to reflect editorial bias. Examination of editor affiliation with the major U.S. political parties showed some variation in editing preferences with regard to the distribution of the most heavily edited articles, and no preference for politically similar editors in discussing article content, despite a preference for interacting with politically similar editors in more personal communication.

Analyses

Greenstein and Zhu

Shane Greenstein and Feng Zhu, professor and associate professor respectively at the Harvard Business School, have authored several studies examining Wikipedia articles related to U.S. politics and the editors that work on them to identify aspects of ideological bias within the its collective intelligence.

Is Wikipedia Biased? (2012)

In Is Wikipedia Biased?, the authors examined a sample of 28,382 articles related to U.S. politics (as of January 2011) measuring their degree of bias on a "slant index" based on a method developed by Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro in 2010, to measure bias in newspaper media.[4] This slant index measures an ideological lean toward either Democratic or Republican based on key phrases within the text and gives a rating for the relative amount of that lean. The authors used this method to measure whether Wikipedia was meeting its stated policy of neutral point of view. They also examined the changes to articles over time as they are revised. The authors concluded that older articles from the early years of Wikipedia leaned Democratic, whereas those created more recently held more balance. They suggest that articles did not change their bias significantly due to revision, but rather that over time newer articles containing opposite points of view were responsible for centering the average overall.[5][6][7]: 4–5 

Ideological Segregation among Online Collaborators (2016)

The 2016 study Ideological Segregation among Online Collaborators: Evidence from Wikipedians by Greenstein, Zhu, and Yuan Gu focused on the behaviors of contributing editors themselves. Working again within a subset of articles related to U.S. politics and using terminology introduced in Is Wikipedia Biased?, the authors offer two significant findings. They found that slanted editors are slightly more likely to contribute to articles which exhibit the opposite slant - a tendency that the authors called Opposites Attract - which indicates a "prevalence of unsegregated conversations at Wikipedia over time". They also found that the degree of editor bias is not persistent, but lessens over time - "[t]he largest declines are found among contributors who edit or add content to articles that have more biases" - but estimated that this convergence takes about one year on average longer for Republicans than for Democrats.[8][9][10][11][12]

Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? (2017)

In a more extensive American follow-up study, Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia, Greenstein and Zhu directly compare about 4,000 articles related to U.S. politics between Wikipedia (written by an online community) and the matching articles from Encyclopædia Britannica (written by experts) using similar methods as their 2010 study to measure slant (Democratic vs. Republican) and to quantify the degree of bias. The authors found that "Wikipedia articles are more slanted towards Democratic views than are Britannica articles, as well as more biased", particularly those focusing on civil rights, corporations, and government. Entries about immigration trended toward Republican. They further found that "(t)he difference in bias between a pair of articles decreases with more revisions" and, when articles were substantially revised, the difference in bias compared to Britannica was statistically negligible. The implication, per the authors, is that "many contributions are needed to reduce considerable bias and slant to something close to neutral".[13][14][1][15][10]

Claims of bias

Conservapedia

American Christian conservative activist Andrew Schlafly founded the online encyclopedia Conservapedia in 2006 based on his view of "liberal bias" on Wikipedia, which he also described as "increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American".[16] He said that he "found that the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views" and that "facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored", that some articles use British English, and that Christianity is not given credit for the Renaissance.[17] Conservapedia has itself received negative reactions from the mainstream media, political figures, journalists, and scientists for its bias and factual inaccuracies.[18][19][20][21][22][16][23][24][25][26][27]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ For the internal Wikipedia policy on neutrality, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

References

  1. ^ a b Fitts, Alexis Sobel (June 21, 2017). "Welcome to the Wikipedia of the Alt-Right". Backchannel. Wired. Retrieved 1 June 2018.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Burnsed was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (2010). Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia. MIT Press. pp. 11, 55–58. ISBN 978-0-262-01447-2. LCCN 2009052779.
  4. ^ Gentzkow, M; Shapiro, J. M. (January 2010). "What Drives Media Slant? Evidence From U.S. Daily Newspapers". Econometrica. 78 (1). The Econometric Society: 35–71. doi:10.3982/ECTA7195.
  5. ^ Greenstein, Shane; Zhu, Feng (May 2012). "Is Wikipedia Biased?". American Economic Review. 102 (3). American Economic Association: 343–348. doi:10.1257/aer.102.3.343.
  6. ^ Khimm, Suzy (June 18, 2012). "Study: Wikipedia perpetuates political bias". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
  7. ^ Shi, F.; Teplitskiy, M.; Duede, E.; Evans, J.A. (November 29, 2017). "The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds". (paper). arXiv:1712.06414.
  8. ^ Greenstein, Shane; Gu, Yuan; Zhu, Feng (March 2017) [October 2016]. "Ideological segregation among online collaborators: Evidence from Wikipedians". National Bureau of Economic Research. No. w22744. doi:10.3386/w22744. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
  9. ^ Nguyen, Godefroy Dang; Dejean, Sylvain; Jullien, Nicolas (February 2018). "Do open online projects create social norms?". Journal of Institutional Economics. 14 (1): 45–70. doi:10.1017/S1744137417000182.
  10. ^ a b Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 May 2018.
  11. ^ Bernick, Michael (March 28, 2018). "The Power Of The Wikimedia Movement Beyond Wikimedia". Forbes. Retrieved 4 June 2018.
  12. ^ Gebelhoff, Robert (October 19, 2016). "Science shows Wikipedia is the best part of the Internet". The Washington Post. Retrieved 4 June 2018.
  13. ^ Greenstein, Shane; Zhu, Feng (2014). "Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia" (PDF). MIS Quarterly.
  14. ^ "Is Collective Intelligence Less Biased?". BizEd. AACSB. May 1, 2015. Retrieved 17 May 2018.
  15. ^ Bhattacharya, Ananya (November 6, 2016). "Wikipedia's not as biased as you might think". Quartz. Retrieved 4 June 2018.
  16. ^ a b Johnson, Bobbie (March 1, 2007). "Rightwing website challenges 'liberal bias' of Wikipedia". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 June 2018.
  17. ^ Johnson, Bobbie (March 2, 2007). "Conservapedia - the U.S. religious right's answer to Wikipedia". Retrieved 2018-06-02.
  18. ^ Zeller, Shawn (March 5, 2007). "Conservapedia: See Under "Right"". The New York Times.
  19. ^ Calore, Michael (February 28, 2007). "What Would Jesus Wiki?". Wired.
  20. ^ {{cite news |last=Chung |first =Andrew |url=https://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501 |title=A U.S. conservative wants to set Wikipedia right |work=Toronto Star|date=March 11, 2007
  21. ^ Clarke, conor (March 1, 2007). "A fact of one's own". The Guardian.
  22. ^ "Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes". Metro. March 19, 2007.
  23. ^ Anderson, Nate (March 4, 2007). "Conservapedia hopes to "fix" Wikipedia's "liberal bias"". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2018-06-02.
  24. ^ Timmer, John (June 30, 2008). "Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount". Ars Technica. Retrieved 4 June 2018.
  25. ^ Marshall, Michael (June 25, 2008). "Creationist critics get their comeuppance". New Scientist. Archived from the original on June 2, 2016. Retrieved June 3, 2018.
  26. ^ Arthur, Charles (July 1, 2008). "Conservapedia has a little hangup over evolution". The Guardian. Retrieved 4 June 2018.
  27. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2009). "Chapter 5. Before our very eyes". The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Simon and Schuster. p. 131. ISBN 978-1-4165-9478-9. LCCN 2009025330.

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&oldid=846122003"