Archives:1,
2,
3,
4,
5Auto-archiving period: 30 days
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic
coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the
project page. Please remember to
avoid self-references and maintain a
neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Hava Mendelle (November 2, 2023).
"Wikipedia at war".
Spectator Australia. Retrieved November 2, 2023. Wikipedia itself notes its journalistic bias here stating that sources are predominately derived from liberal news sources.
Bias review
Is there a method to which pages can be reviewed for ideological bias? I feel If there was a forum to address these concerns then it could relieve a lot of debate on the subject
2001:1970:4AE5:A300:A13B:D3C6:5D5D:5078 (
talk) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
That's a huge topic involving editing practices at the individual article, and various policies, guidelines and noticeboards. A good place to start learning might be to watch
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for a few weeks. But this talk page is limited to discussing improving this particular article. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk) 22:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The "neutrality" policy of Wiipedia all but guarantees that articles will have an ideological bias. That's because articles will give greater space to information and views that are most strongly supported in reliable sources. So for example, articles about evolution will provide more space to material supporting the theory than to those opposing it.
TFD (
talk) 10:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Science as narrowly defined by the scientific method: hypothesis, observations, results – you are correct is not an ideology
Science as commonly thought of today i.e a materialistic worldview where understanding is dominated by “consensus” which helps us determine metaphysical reality, right & wrong & influence politics: this is very much an ideology
Tonymetz💬 03:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Reinforcing what Hob Gadlin said, that was a bad example. In this context, bias is bias against widely held credible opinions views. In the article, it is against fringe views which conflict with reality. North8000 (
talk) 18:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I am using the term bias to mean "a tendency to prefer one person or thing to another." (Collins Dictionary) In this case, the bias is to give weight reflecting relative acceptance in reliable sources.
Ideological bias shapes peoples' attitudes toward scientific information, and that becomes progressively so as one progresses from natural to social sciences.
The reason articles on evolution pay little attention to creationism is entirely based on the degree of its acceptance in reliable sources. Wikipedia editors do not evaluate generally accepted beliefs, they just report them. If people in the ancient or medieval worlds had prepared an encyclopedia using Wikipedia's policies, it would have read very differently.
TFD (
talk) 03:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
The Four Deuces: I'm with you in spirit. I just think that choosing an example that involves true and false on objective matters of fact and saying that the choice is just from tallying up opinions of wp:RS's / wp:"R"S's might contribute to the problem. One can assert that the latter method is the cause of bias and scrutinizing of that by sources could be a valid part of the content of this article. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk) 17:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, and we are exercising it, consensus.
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply