On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 09:36, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm going to stop there, with a general observation - I think they're
right on one big picture thing: Wikipedia has an editorial bias - our
"default neutrality" is that of a moderately internationalist,
left-of-US-center somewhat more intellectual than average and more
young internet user than average position, compared to the US
political landscape as a whole. I.e., our userbase (editors) is
skewed younger and more liberally, with the Internet early adopters
general population statistics.
I am concerned not so much with the specifics they are pointing out,
but at a general trend that we may include more negatives about
conservative positions and people than about liberal positions and
people, which would be worth some statistical analysis. Ancedotal
examples, especially those cited by someone so far off on the right
end of the spectrum as young-earth creationists, aren't particularly
useful for identifying the pattern.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
I don't get this objection, really - that is, if I'm reading you
right, that you should be concerned that your articles include fewer
"negatives about conservative positions". Your goal ought to be to
represent facts, not to strike a balance between highly politicized
narratives that are woven to serve the interests of political
movements rather than accumulate knowledge.
The generally 'moderately left of center' perspective of most
Wikipedia articles reflects the same bias present in US media sources;
and some people{{weasel}} (me) would consider that to be quite an
extreme conservative perspective, eg in articles on Islamic terrorism,
well to the right of most people in the country (and the facts, for
that matter).
The great thing about an encyclopedia is supposed to be that compiling
the facts cuts through these preconceived notions, but when your
sources are already themselves biased, it may be time to look in the
mirror a bit.
- causa sui