Wikipedia Extreme Bias Exposed
Ahreeman X Wrote about Wikipedia Bias in 2019
Wikipedia Censorship, Propaganda & Liberal Bias
Wikipedia Joins Rest of the Tech Giants Censorship & Lies
Wikipedia Becomes Part of the Silicon Valley Propaganda Machine
Index of Articles
______________
* Ahreeman X Writing in his History Book
* Newsmax Article
* Breitbart Article
Wikipedia
https://www.wikipedia.org/
*
Ahreeman Exposed Wikipedia Bias in 2019
In 2019, Ahreeman wrote about the Wikipedia and Google bias and lies in regards to history and scholarly documents. Read below section from Ahreeman’s book:
“Evolution of Online False History
Online False History is basically the online version of the Traditional History which both are biased talking point narratives. Online history is basically opinion, estimation and popular belief.
* Opinion is the opinion of these so-called modern historians which are based upon the same old traditional history of the traditional historians piling up much unsubstantiated narratives and nonsense.
* Estimation is how they connect unrelated events and dates, also incoherent paragraphs to create a history.
* Popular Belief is the false narrative transferred from generation to generation as the traditional history by the biased so-called traditional historians.
A few so-called historians gather and write incoherent, gibberish and frantic paragraphs online which in many cases does not even read well (Wikipedia). These false information and fake history move on from Encyclopedia Iranica, Encyclopedia Britannica and others to the Wikipedia which is an open source and anyone with 2 sources can write history in it! What if those 2 sources are also false?! Then the false information moves on to Google and Search Engines and there, they become documented facts! Then you punch in Google and ask a question? In return you get opinion, estimation and popular belief gathered from Wikipedia which Wikipedia itself gathered from Britannica and Iranica which they all rooted as False History and Fake News! This is how Fake News becomes Documented History in Google! The mighty Evolution of the False History!
As the results, you go research a historical character and you will see that the major dates (birth, reign, death, events) are wrong, names are wrong, flag designs are wrong, even the nature of events are wrong! So naturally the complete narrative about a historical character becomes wrong!
Google, the Most Biased Source of Information
So next time someone tells you to Google this or that (as a fact), tell them that I don’t Google anything (because it’s fiction) but I online research to seek “Facts”! The funny thing is that even now, Google gets much of its Persian history from IPC!”
Read more:
Last Persian Emperor: Aqa Mohammad Shah Qajar
Historically Condemned or Historical Hero?
Psychological Thriller Deep in the Psyche of Aqa Mohammad Shah!
Pictorial History of Aqa Mohammad Shah Qajar in 4 Chapters
https://iranpoliticsclub.net/library/en ... /index.htm
*
Liberal Bias of Wikipedia Called Out in 5 Studies
Newsmax
https://www.newsmax.com/
Left-wing media bias has taken over once-neutral Wikipedia, just as co-founder Larry Sanger lamented earlier this year, according to five studies reviewing the content of the online encyclopedia.
The studies have concluded Wikipedia is even more left-biased than the Encyclopedia Britannica, left-wing indoctrination is pushed harder by leftist editors, liberal media is more pronounced in the mentions on that site, the reviews of politicians relies are left-wing sources, and conservative editors on the website are six times more likely to be sanctioned for their updates.
1. Harvard Study: Wikipedia More Left-Biased Than Britannica
Harvard Study
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/D ... 67919?p2df
While both are slanted toward liberal views, the study find Wikipedia is more biased toward Democrats.
"Using a matched sample of pairs of articles from Britannica and Wikipedia, we show that, overall, Wikipedia articles are more slanted towards Democrat than Britannica articles, as well as more biased," the study's abstract reads.
Notably, Wikipedia becomes less biased the more a post is edited and reviewed, and the study also found the most liberal-biased entries are ones least edited or reviewed.
2. Harvard Study: Indoctrination Pushed Harder Left and by Leftists
Harvard Study
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication ... 3539f3.pdf
The same researchers above followed up their study with another one that found the most frequent editors are leftists and they are also far more biased partisans, according to their study.
3. Wikipediocracy: Top News Outlets Cited Are Mostly Left-Wing
Wikipediocracy Study
http://wikipediocracy.com/2018/08/26/wi ... s-methods/
Established leftist outlets The New York Times and BBC News are the most cited sources, around 200,000 stories. The Guardian, an equally left-wing outlet, is cited third at almost 100,000 citations.
Among the top 10 most-cited, only one was right-leaning.
4. Wikipediocracy/AllSides: U.S. Politicians Pages Rely on Left-Wing Sources
Wikipediocracy Study
http://archive.is/dDr7X
Using AllSides and Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) ratings, a Wikipediocracy user found stories on American politicians rely mostly on left-wing media. The ratio is almost 3- or 4-to-1 left wing vs. right wing. And even centrist sources are used to the same ratio vs. right wing ones, per the analysis.
5. The Critic: Right-Wing Editors 6 Times More Likely to Be Sanctioned
The Critic Study
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-b ... wikipedia/
Those espousing right-wing views on topics like politics, abortion, gun control, race, and intelligence were six times more likely to be sanctions by the "Supreme Court" of the Wikipedia editors, especially those reviewing things about President Donald Trump.
*
5 Times Studies Proved Wikipedia’s Left-Wing Bias
Breitbart News
https://www.breitbart.com/
Jimmy Wales Co-Founder Wikipedia
Multiple academic studies and critical analyses of Wikipedia have pointed towards the site’s left-wing bias. The findings include its content being more left-leaning than Encyclopedia Britannica and left-leaning editors being more active and partisan than right-leaning editors. Left-wing outlets have been found to be the top-cited sources and represent most citations on articles about American politicians, and right-leaning editors have at the same time been found to be six times more likely to face sanctions.
Such studies and analyses validate criticism from the site’s co-founder, Larry Sanger, who earlier this year declared Wikipedia’s neutrality policy “dead” due to left-wing bias on the site. Following are five studies and analyses demonstrating Wikipedia bias:
More biased than Encyclopedia Britannica
One study from Harvard Business School academics Shane Greenstein and Feng Zhu analyzed the content of Wikipedia to determine whether it showed a political bias. In the study, Greenstein and Zhu examined articles covering U.S. politics on Wikipedia and compared them to similar articles in Encyclopedia Britannica, the oldest English-language encyclopedia whose articles are written by vetted experts unlike the volunteer amateurs often editing Wikipedia pages. Using an academic method to examine bias, the researchers looked at word choices more consistent with left-wing and right-wing views respectively.
The study found that articles on Wikipedia tended to show greater left-wing bias based on this method than comparable articles in Encyclopedia Britannica. In the case of both, the study found the encyclopedias exhibited a left-wing bias. Greenstein and Zhu concluded one reason for this bias was the length of Wikipedia articles relative to Britannica. On a per-word basis, they found Wikipedia was slightly-less biased, though still found it showed a left-wing bias. They further found that bias declined the more edits an article received, with the most-biased tending to be the least edited.
Left-wing editors more active and partisan
Greenstein and Zhu published a subsequent paper with Grace Gu using these same methods to examine individual editors and their biases. Corroborating the previous study, the researchers found editors showing a left-wing bias tended to be more active and more partisan than their right-wing counterparts. However, the researchers also concluded many editors moderate their bias in editing the more they edit and thus over many years left-wing editors moved towards a more neutral stance somewhat more quickly. One flaw in the study is it excludes editors who made over 950 edits in a year, which excludes many of the site’s most active partisans.
Top-cited news outlets mainly left-wing
Wikipedia sourcing has been the subject of critical analysis as well with one instance being looking at the top-cited outlets on the site. The 2018 analysis by editor “SashiRolls” published at Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy used Wikipedia’s internal search engine to identify how many articles cited specific sources. What the resulting data showed is that establishment left-leaning outlets such as the New York Times and BBC News, each cited in around 200,000 articles, were often the most-cited news sources. The left-wing Guardian was the third most-cited outlet with almost 100,000 articles citing the outlet. Among the top ten outlets cited in Wikipedia articles, only one was right-leaning.
Pages on American politicians mostly cite left-wing outlets
Narrowing the review of Wikipedia sourcing, one user on Wikipediocracy specifically examined the extent to which sources were used on articles about American politicians as of July of this year. The analysis looked at all articles included in the category for 21st Century American Politicians and used a public tool to pull the sources cited in those articles. Each source was then categorized based on bias determinations by both AllSides and Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC), sites that publish bias ratings for news media.
What the analysis found is that articles on American politicians tended to rely on left-wing media. Based on AllSides ratings, 33,000 sources used were left-wing with 44,000 being left-wing based on MBFC ratings. Right-wing sources were shown to be more rarely used with such sources being cited less than 10,000 times according to either rating site. Centrist sources were used more often and closer to the number of times left-wing sources were used. Neither ratings site has rated all of the outlets cited on Wikipedia, while some ratings differ between the two sites.
Right-leaning editors six times more likely to be sanctioned
Connecting sourcing bias and editorial bias, two American academics analyzed bias in Wikipedia’s policy enforcement on political articles in a piece for British magazine the Critic. The academics looked at “arbitration enforcement” cases where administrators with special privileges on the site can impose restrictions on editors under sanction regimes applied by the Arbitration Committee, often likened to a Supreme Court. Often applied by topic area, the analysis looked specifically at how sanctions were handed out in areas such as U.S. presidential politics, abortion, gun control, and race and intelligence.
The analysis showed that, in every area, those editors whose contributions favored the right-leaning perspective were more likely to be sanctioned. In some cases, the samples were not large enough, but in the area of U.S. politics cases concerning President Donald Trump, the analysis found editors favoring a pro-Trump perspective were about six times more likely to be sanctioned based on 114 cases. Examining all areas together similarly found editors favoring a right-leaning perspective were six times more likely to be sanctioned than those favoring the left-leaning perspective. The academics suggested administrative bias could explain right-leaning sources being disfavored on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia becomes widely-praised and influential
Site co-founder Larry Sanger this year examined bias in several articles when declaring Wikipedia had abandoned neutrality. He noted President Barack Obama’s article mentioned none of his Administration’s scandals, but scandals on President Trump’s page were extensively documented. The sourcing bias identified in several analyses contributes to such content bias as with articles on Antifa and Black Lives Matter. One reason for Wikipedia’s sourcing bias is right-wing media being subject to a years-long purge invoking policies on “verifiability” and “reliable” sourcing. Many editors cite combating “fake news” to justify the purge, a narrative pushed by the site’s owners following advice from a Clinton-tied public relations firm.
In a communications audit by the firm Minassian Media, they noted Wikipedia was usually covered favorably, except when the site’s reliability was the subject of the story. Pushing the site as a challenge to “opinionated news” citing the 2016 election was how the firm recommended improving Wikipedia’s reputation. The effort has been an apparent success with many corporate media outlets praising the site, even on its handling of political articles where edits favored left-wing views. Companies in Big Tech and organizations such as the World Health Organization have also seized on claims of Wikipedia’s reliability to incorporate the site into their efforts against “misinformation” online.
Demonstrated left-wing bias indicates how harmful Wikipedia’s influence can become. Previous studies have already shown Wikipedia can shape scientific literature and economic behaviors with some studies raising whether it can influence elections. In the case of the 2020 Presidential election, articles about Hunter Biden and both former Vice President Joe Biden and current President Trump saw tens of thousands of views on Election Day, hundreds of thousands in the preceding weeks. However, articles about the Bidens were slanted in their favor due partly to widespread censorship of alleged Biden family corruption aided by restrictions against citing the right-wing outlets covering the allegations, while Trump-related articles have seen multiple smear campaigns.
T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias.
*
