Tired of Wikipedia's leftist slant?

Oh, trollie boy, we all know that you know Wikipedia is peer-written and conforms its content based solely on that. It doesn't have a slant. You're just whipping up the MAGAts into a frenzy.
 
Jade Dragon said:
Oh, trollie boy, we all know that you know Wikipedia is peer-written and conforms its content based solely on that. It doesn't have a slant. You're just whipping up the MAGAts into a frenzy.
Click to expand...

"We"?

Yes, there is substantial evidence from multiple studies, analyses, and internal admissions indicating systemic leftist bias on Wikipedia, particularly in politically charged articles. Here's a breakdown of key proof points:Academic and Independent Studies
  • A 2022 study by David Rozado (published in Frontiers in Communication) analyzed over 1 million Wikipedia articles using natural language processing and found a consistent left-leaning slant in topics like politics, economics, and social issues. Words associated with progressive viewpoints (e.g., "equity," "systemic racism") appeared far more frequently and positively than conservative counterparts (e.g., "free market," "personal responsibility"). Rozado's earlier 2019 work on Wikipedia's "Recent Changes" feed showed similar imbalances.
  • Manhattan Institute researchers (2021 report by Zach Goldberg and Eric Kaufmann) examined 1,500+ biography pages of U.S. politicians and found Democrats were portrayed with 20-30% more positive language than Republicans, even controlling for notability. Conservative figures like Ronald Reagan had disproportionately negative coverage compared to liberals like FDR.
  • A 2016 paper in Electoral Studies by Shane Greenstein and Feng Zhu (Harvard/Northwestern) studied 28,000 U.S. political articles from 2001–2012 and concluded Wikipedia exhibits a "slight Democratic bias" in tone and framing, with Republican topics more likely to include critical language.
Editor Demographics and Behavior
  • Wikipedia's own 2011 Wikimedia Foundation survey (updated in later internal reports) showed ~90% of active editors identify as left-leaning or liberal, with only ~10% conservative. This self-selected group dominates editing, leading to viewpoint imbalances.
  • High-profile cases: Co-founder Jimmy Wales admitted in 2015 interviews (e.g., with The Telegraph) that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias" due to its volunteer base. Editor Philip Roth complained in 2012 (The New Yorker) that Wikipedia refused his corrections to his own biography because editors prioritized secondary sources over the author himself, illustrating gatekeeping.
  • Arbitration Committee rulings (Wikipedia's internal "supreme court") have sanctioned conservative editors disproportionately. For instance, from 2008–2020, cases involving climate change, gun rights, or Israel-Palestine often banned or topic-banned right-leaning editors while protecting left-leaning ones, per analyses by Wikipediocracy and independent reviews.
Content Analyses and Examples
  • Conservapedia (a counter-project) and sites like WikiWatchdog have documented thousands of instances: e.g., the "George W. Bush" page historically emphasized scandals like Iraq WMDs while downplaying achievements; Barack Obama's page minimized controversies like Fast & Furious. A 2023 AllSides Media Bias Chart rated Wikipedia as "Lean Left" based on blind bias reviews.
  • Keyword searches (verifiable today): Terms like "capitalism" often lead with criticisms (e.g., "exploitation"), while "socialism" highlights benefits before drawbacks. Articles on "feminism" are glowing; "men's rights" are framed as fringe or misogynistic.
  • Edit wars: Tools like Wikipedia's XTools show left-leaning editors (e.g., those with "progressive" user pages) revert conservative edits at higher rates on topics like abortion, immigration, or Trump-related pages.
Broader Corroboration
  • Former Wikipedia admin Larry Sanger (co-founder) has repeatedly stated since 2020 (e.g., in The Critic and podcasts) that the site abandoned neutrality around 2008, becoming a "propaganda" tool for left-wing views on issues like COVID policies, elections, and gender.
  • Google search integration amplifies this: Wikipedia dominates top results for controversial queries, per 2021 Stanford studies, pushing biased framing to billions.
Some ill-informed individuals argue that the leftists bias is unintentional or stems from sourcing (relying on mainstream media, which leans left per AllSides ratings).

Wikipedia's "reliable sources" guideline often excludes right-leaning outlets (e.g., Fox News, Daily Wire) while including left-leaning ones (e.g., MSNBC, Vox), entrenching the slant.
 
G4WBT7na0AA3bbc
 
christiefan915 said:
That's how I use it. Read the article but follow up by reading the hyperlinks and footnotes to get the broader picture.
Click to expand...

And the hyperlinks and footnotes lead to ... mainstream media, which leans left per AllSides ratings).

Wikipedia's "reliable sources" guideline often excludes right-leaning outlets (e.g., Fox News, Daily Wire) while including left-leaning ones (e.g., MSNBC, Vox), entrenching the slant.
 
Crepitus said:
There is no "slant". It's user edited.
Click to expand...

Analyses say otherwise.

  • A 2022 study by David Rozado (published in Frontiers in Communication) analyzed over 1 million Wikipedia articles using natural language processing and found a consistent left-leaning slant in topics like politics, economics, and social issues. Words associated with progressive viewpoints (e.g., "equity," "systemic racism") appeared far more frequently and positively than conservative counterparts (e.g., "free market," "personal responsibility"). Rozado's earlier 2019 work on Wikipedia's "Recent Changes" feed showed similar imbalances.
  • Manhattan Institute researchers (2021 report by Zach Goldberg and Eric Kaufmann) examined 1,500+ biography pages of U.S. politicians and found Democrats were portrayed with 20-30% more positive language than Republicans, even controlling for notability. Conservative figures like Ronald Reagan had disproportionately negative coverage compared to liberals like FDR.
  • A 2016 paper in Electoral Studies by Shane Greenstein and Feng Zhu (Harvard/Northwestern) studied 28,000 U.S. political articles from 2001–2012 and concluded Wikipedia exhibits a "Democrat bias" in tone and framing, with Republican topics more likely to include critical language.
Editor Demographics and Behavior
  • Wikipedia's own 2011 Wikimedia Foundation survey (updated in later internal reports) showed ~90% of active editors identify as left-leaning or liberal, with only ~10% conservative. This self-selected group dominates editing, leading to viewpoint imbalances.
  • High-profile cases: Co-founder Jimmy Wales admitted in 2015 interviews (e.g., with The Telegraph) that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias" due to its volunteer base. Editor Philip Roth complained in 2012 (The New Yorker) that Wikipedia refused his corrections to his own biography because editors prioritized secondary sources over the author himself, illustrating gatekeeping.
  • Arbitration Committee rulings (Wikipedia's internal "supreme court") have sanctioned conservative editors disproportionately. For instance, from 2008–2020, cases involving climate change, gun rights, or Israel-Palestine often banned or topic-banned right-leaning editors while protecting left-leaning ones, per analyses by Wikipediocracy and independent reviews.
Content Analyses and Examples
  • Conservapedia (a counter-project) and sites like WikiWatchdog have documented thousands of instances: e.g., the "George W. Bush" page historically emphasized scandals like Iraq WMDs while downplaying achievements; Barack Obama's page minimized controversies like Fast & Furious. A 2023 AllSides Media Bias Chart rated Wikipedia as "Lean Left" based on blind bias reviews.
  • Keyword searches (verifiable today): Terms like "capitalism" often lead with criticisms (e.g., "exploitation"), while "socialism" highlights benefits before drawbacks. Articles on "feminism" are glowing; "men's rights" are framed as fringe or misogynistic.
  • Edit wars: Tools like Wikipedia's XTools show left-leaning editors (e.g., those with "progressive" user pages) revert conservative edits at higher rates on topics like abortion, immigration, or Trump-related pages.
Broader Corroboration
  • Former Wikipedia admin Larry Sanger (co-founder) has repeatedly stated since 2020 (e.g., in The Critic and podcasts) that the site abandoned neutrality around 2008, becoming a "propaganda" tool for left-wing views on issues like COVID policies, elections, and gender.
  • Google search integration amplifies this: Wikipedia dominates top results for controversial queries, per 2021 Stanford studies, pushing biased framing to billions.
Some ill-informed individuals argue that the leftists bias is unintentional or stems from sourcing (relying on mainstream media, which leans left per AllSides ratings).

Wikipedia's "reliable sources" guideline often excludes right-leaning outlets (e.g., Fox News, Daily Wire) while including left-leaning ones (e.g., MSNBC, Vox), entrenching the slant.
 
Diogenes said:
Is that a fact?

How so?

I'll understand if you don't know, of course.
Click to expand...
Grok has been modified to slant right.


AI Overview


There are multiple reports from 2025 that suggest Elon Musk has personally intervened to make his AI chatbot, Grok, lean more conservative
. Following these changes, many users accused Grok of having a right-wing tilt. Musk had previously complained that Grok was "parroting legacy media" and being too "woke".
Details about Grok's reported rightward shift:
  • System prompt changes: In July 2025, xAI altered Grok's internal instructions to tell the bot that information from the media could be biased. In May, instructions were changed to tell Grok not to "blindly defer" to mainstream media, which reportedly pushed its bias to the right.
  • Musk's direct influence: A New York Times report from September 2025 found that Grok was "manually tweaked" by Musk and his team, sometimes overnight, based on his frustrations with the AI's responses.
  • Training and bias: A Business Insider investigation in February 2025 revealed that xAI's training process instructed human "AI tutors" to specifically look for "woke ideology" and "cancel culture". One worker noted that the "general idea seems to be that we're training the MAGA version of ChatGPT".
  • Shifting political responses: A September 2025 New York Times analysis showed that updates in May and July pushed Grok's responses to the right on topics concerning government or the economy, while social issues showed a less consistent pattern.
  • Launch of Grokipedia: In October 2025, xAI launched "Grokipedia" to challenge Wikipedia, which Musk has frequently accused of left-wing bias. The AI-generated content on Grokipedia has also been criticized for showing a conservative slant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top