Some Claim Wikipedia Is Leftist
Despite it's aim toward a Neutral Point of View, some claim Wikipedia Is Leftist.
- In February 2021, Fox News accused Wikipedia of whitewashing communism and socialism. In November 2021, the English Wikipedia's entry for "Mass killings under communist regimes" was nominated for deletion, with some editors arguing that it has "a biased 'anti-Communist' point of view"... On December 1, 2021, a panel of four administrators found that the discussion yielded no consensus, meaning that the status quo was retained, and the article was not deleted.
- Wikipedia has been charged with having a systemic racial bias in its coverage, due to an underrepresentation of people of colour as editors.
- In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center criticized Wikipedia for being "vulnerable to manipulation by neo-Nazis, white nationalists and racist academics seeking a wider audience for extreme views."... The SPLC cited the article "Race and intelligence" as an example of the alt-right influence on Wikipedia, stating that at that time the article presented a "false balance" between fringe racialist views and the "mainstream perspective in psychology."
- Wikipedia has been criticized for reflecting the bias and influence of media that are seen as reliable due to their dominance.
- According to critics, systematic bias arises from the tendency of the editors most active in maintaining firearms-related articles to also be gun enthusiasts, and firearms-related articles are dominated by technical information while issues of the social impact and regulation of firearms are relegated to separate articles.
- Wikipedia has been accused of being biased against views outside of the scientific mainstream due to influence from the skeptical movement.
Elon Musk claims Twitter is Leftist
- *“Most of Earth: “The MSM is biased.” Wikipedia: “Cite MSM source to confirm this claim.” Wikipedia has a non-trivial left-wing bias.”
- Apr'2022 re founding of Tesla
Apr'2020 Larry Sanger: Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.1 The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call “false balance. (view from nowhere) The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal.... Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke. Just for example, there are 5,224 none-too-flattering words in the “Presidency” section. By contrast, the following “Public Profile” (which the Obama article entirely lacks), “Investigations,” and “Impeachment” sections are unrelentingly negative.
Edited: | Tweet this! | Search Twitter for discussion