A Call to Arms for All Fair Minded People to Become Contributors to Correct Liberal Tilting Wikipedia Entries with “Fair and Balanced” Factual Information
Wikipedia should come with a warning label much the same as cigarettes because relying on anything published in it “could be hazardous to your (intellectual) health.”
Most of the entries contain either factually inaccurate information or at least information culled from published sources that have greatly distorted or revised history. It appears most Wikipedia entries have a very liberal bent which is obvious to anyone that objectively reviews articles. Bios of Democrat politicians are normally much more laudatory in tone and either exclude or minimize derogatory information while Republican bios are routinely much harsher. Even subtle methods are often used to advance a liberal viewpoint. For example, in the entry on “Draft Dodger,” reference is made to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton as examples – three Republicans and one Democrat. Balance might have suggested using Republicans Bush and Cheney, and Clinton and Vice President Biden.” (although for the record, Bush flying antique Air National Guard Convair F-102s was probably in more danger than I was during an extended CIB-earning tour in Vietnam!)
Another even better example of subtle liberal bias is this passage in the John F. Kennedy Bio describing the Bay of Pigs Invasion: “Prior to Kennedy's election to the presidency, the Eisenhower Administration created a plan to overthrow the Fidel Castro regime in Cuba” thus implying that Kennedy merely inherited Eisenhower's flawed plan. “Documentation” for this fallacious accusation was the writings of Kennedy administration officials Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Theodore Sorensen; when, in fact, both men were writing to defend their boss from criticism by unjustly deflecting blame on Eisenhower. In fact, reputable scholars now acknowledge that Eisenhower wasn't even aware of the invasion plan and he even said so in an article published by the New York newspaper Newsday in 1965 titled "Ike Speaks Out: Bay of Pigs was all JFK's.'' Unfortunately, “inconvenient facts” are not welcome in Wikipedia.
To perpetuate their liberal agenda, Wikipedia has appointed a cadre of “like minded progressive” volunteer “Administrators” who are editors trusted with access to restricted policing tools so they can “protect,” “delete,” and even “block” contributions by others who make edits that don’t conform to their liberal biases.
Bottom line: If you like getting your news from Newsweek, you’ll love getting your “facts” from Wikipedia! I wouldn't believe a Wikipedia Editor under oath!
So what’s the FIX! I’m calling on ALL Fair Minded people that believe Wikipedia ought to be providing “Fair and Balanced” treatment of all subjects to become contributors. Scour all entries, especially those prone for liberal distortions such as political Bios, and correct inaccuracies. Be diligent because the liberal Administrator/editors will throw in every conceivable roadblock to thwart your efforts. At times it will be frustrating but if enough fair minded people make the effort, it will eventually overwhelm their capacity to filter out the truth.
I came to your blog because comments had closed on the Washington Post story re:Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteWhat I wanted to say in my comment was that in the time it took to write your comments criticizing the project you could easily have edited 2 or 3 articles to be more 'fair and balanced'. I was please to see that you have that recommendation here in your blog! Well done.
In reading your comments, I would probably have to say that our political leanings could not be further apart, but I strongly support your call for anyone/everyone to contribute to Wikipedia to ensure that it IS fair and balanced. I do not like to see distortions or inaccuracies in articles.
To be sure, editors bring their beliefs and values to the project and on many occasions there are very heated discussions (see the article discussion pages for examples) about what should and should not be included in articles. My experience, though, is that most of the time, neutrality is achieved through discussion and, ultimately, consensus.
What I generally tell people when they find and complain about a biased article is "Fix it!" :) I think most are under the mistaken belief that they have no say in the matter. I'll be the first to say that there are articles that have inaccuracies and distortions. This, though, points to the fact that people need to be encouraged to take a role in correcting the information so that it is accurate and neutral.
As long as Wikipedia editors work in good faith and discuss potentially contentious additions on the article talk pages in a civilized manner, the project can (and, in my opinion, does) work. There are rules in editing, but these are in place to ensure that articles are neutral and unbiased.
I'm glad to see that you've encouraged your readers to take an active role in collaborating on Wikipedia articles. The one thing that I disagreed with in your comments on the Post article was when you mentioned "their" agenda. As an editor, I'd prefer to refer to Wikipedia as "our" project!
I applaud the Colonel's call to arms in this post. I strongly urge anyone and everyone to edit Wikipedia to ensure that the articles are fair and balanced and do not contain any inaccuracies. There certainly are articles that contain inaccuracies and there are articles that are not written in a neutral manner (favoring one viewpoint over another). I'm pleased that you are encouraging your readers to step up and fix things.
ReplyDeleteAs one might expect, there are a number of articles on issues and topics that are susceptible to bias in one direction or another. I have been editing Wikipedia regularly for about 18 months. I have seen many arguments over edits. In general, though, my experience has been that consensus is reached through discussions on the articles' talk/discussion pages. Every article in Wikipedia has a talk or discussion page where additions and edits can be discussed. If two or more editors can't achieve a consensus on an edit, there is a process in place whereby a disinterested editor can be asked to mediate. It's unfortunate, but many people who wish to edit are not aware of the talk pages.
Be aware, though, that there are rules to editing Wikipedia. Avail yourselves of the help screens and welcome messages. Sometimes inexperienced editors DO get blocked by administrators - not as much for the content they wish to add, but for violating one or more of the rules of Wikipedia by not citing sources of information or not editing in a neutral manner.
Wikipedia shouldn't be a battleground of ideologies. I would love to see everyone take part in the process of gathering and providing accurate and unbiased information.