Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In my experience, the non-english speaking Wikipedia(s) have historically been much more politically biased (in ways which aren't announced or marked visibly) than the english speaking wikipedias.
Often the translations to english for some foreign language articles seem (to me) to either remove or explicitly mark a lot of the bias and disputed content in the original. Translations into other languages often seem to introduce some biases or one sided phrasing, that don't exist in the English language versions, and which remain unmarked or unresolved for long periods of time.
I've always attributed this to much smaller staff of regular and well trained contributors for the non english speaking pages.
I can anecdotally confirm that this is starting to regularly not be the case for pages which are politically relevant in the english speaking world.
For the most high traffic pages, the bias seems to be in check. It's either removed, turned balanced, or marked as controversial or biased.
But high traffic pages are a small % of the totality of Wikipedia. It looks to me like many pages which have political relevance in the english speaking world (especially in US and the UK), but have middling or low traffic, have been captured by one or the other side of each specific local debate. Such pages seem to me to present unlabelled disputed and biased views for a much longer period of time than they seemed to, say, 10+ years ago. I'm not sure if there's a way to systematically measure this, and do a historic study (the data is available!)
More options
Context Copy link