Blatant liberal bias on Wikipedia is real
This is a shocking story of blatant liberal biases carried out by Wikipedia’s army of “volunteer” editors. The Wikipedia article about The Daily Caller, a conservative news site, is the strongest example.
The Daily Caller is a conservative news site launched by journalist Tucker Carlson. According to its website, The Daily Caller is “a 24-hour news publication providing its audience with original reporting, thought-provoking commentary and breaking news.”
On March 11, 2020, Wikipedia user Jeremydavis255, an undergraduate student at Northern Arizona University, tried to make a few modest improvements to the Wikipedia article about The Daily Caller.
However, other Wikipedia editors — clearly left-wingers — were having none of it.
A Wikipedia user named Snooganssnoogans immediately reversed the edits using a one-click Wikipedia method called “reverting,” whereby a user clicks an “Undo” button to erase another editor’s work.
Liberal Wikipedia editor “Snooganssnoogans” immediately deleted Jeremy’s revisions to the article. A review of his “edit reasons” for the deletions are unclear at best.
Wikipedia’s special “Snooganssnoogans” liberal
On Wikipedia, as our research has shown, sometimes you uncover a gem of a special kind of stupid. In this sense, we found the user “Snooganssnoogans.”
We looked at “Snooganssnoogans” personal Wikipedia page.
Liberal bias? You betcha.
He lists, as his hobbies on Wikipedia:
- “causes of the 2016 election”
- “whitewashing” of GOP Congressman Devin Nunes’ page
- “whitewashing” of GOP Senator Tom Cotton’s page
- changing GOP Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s page
- changing the Republican Party Wikipedia page
- adding “birtherism” in the introduction paragraph to President Donald J. Trump’s Wikipedia page
If this were in the 1960s, this person would be firebombing veterans’ buses.
He even brags about the criticism he received for his liberal Wikipedia edits.
An appeal to reason . . . falls on deaf ears.
But back to Jeremy and The Daily Caller article.
After getting threatened with getting kicked off Wikipedia for editing the Daily Caller’s article from a neutral standpoint, Jeremy tried to make a sincere appeal to the wider Wikipedia community’s presumed adherence to actual Wikipedia policy by posting an appeal on the article’s “Talk” page.
Unfortunately, no one came to his defense.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I see an issue with this article, and I have ideas on how to fix it. This article contains way to much intricate detail of minor disputes and situations among its 10+ sections dedicated to negative content. We should summarize that content better and put it into a dedicated section, like most Wikipedia articles do.
I understand that some people oppose this organization, its methods and what it’s trying to accomplish. I also understand that some will neither oppose it, and of course there will be those who support it.
Here are my two ideas. I would strongly recommend each:
1. Build a strong-enough “Controversies” section: Summarize the main overall points of the negative content sections, and compose those into a new Controversies section. Make sure the section is long enough to be in line with the gravity, weight, and frequency of the negative angles, but avoid hashing out every minor detail of each dispute or situation.
2. Re-arrange the order of the article: Make it similar to other articles about U.S. political-leaning magazines. The categories can serve as a guide, such as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_conservative_magazines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Alternative_magazines
Several other Wikipedia editors dogpiled onto his comments.
One, named “BullRangifer,” remarked:
We are supposed to use all RS [reliable sources], including biased sources, and editors must remain neutral by not censoring or neutralizing the opinions from those sources.
Really? Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written with blatant biased sources?
That doesn’t sound right.
But back to that in a minute.
Another user even wrote:
. . . this article was fairly recently reorganized to eliminate a “Controversies” section . . .
While Jeremydavis255 had tried to delete inaccuracies, others — presumably more liberal biased editors — accused him of “whitewashing” the article.
Ultimately, as you can see in the image above, Jeremy, a student editor who merely had a conservative belief system, had no choice but to back off.
The liberals had won on Wikipedia.
Again.
The Sun (UK newspaper)
The Sun is a newspaper published in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. As a broadsheet, it was founded in 1964 as a successor to the Daily Herald.
On The Sun’s Wikipedia article, there has been some vandalism.
For example:
Some of the vandalism is outright ridiculous.
One would assume that the wider Wikipedia community would have done more to protect the page from ridiculous edits.
But they did not.
The reason? The Sun leans conservative.
The Gateway Pundit article
In November 2019 the Gateway Pundit, a XYZ site, published an article titled “How Wikipedia’s Far Left Operatives Use Fraud and “Citogenesis” to Smear Trusted Conservative Websites like The Gateway Pundit.”
The article begins with:
Wikipedia is a far left platform that regularly alters its entries in a partisan attempt to shape popular opinion.
Several conservative leaders and conservative publications are littered with garbage, liberal opinion and complete lies in the left’s attempt to control the masses.
The founder of Wikipedia even referred to all Trump supporters — all 63 million conservative and centrist Americans who voted for Trump — as “cultists.”
No surprise there.
On Wikipedia, liberal editors used a weasel technique known as “circular reporting” to smear The Gateway Pundit as a “fake news website.”
According to the Gateway Pundit story:
Editors on Wikipedia altered the page on Gateway Pundit to declare it a “fake news website” after a scandal involving a former writer. This also meant the “fake news” label appeared when someone performed a Google search for the site. Initially uncited in the article, the claim was subsequently sourced to Newsweek, which appears to have got the label from Wikipedia.
This is how the liberal Wikipedia scam worked:
For Wikipedia editors, who are allegedly “volunteers” of an online “encyclopedia” — which is supposed to be NEUTRAL, according to Wikipedia’s own content policies — this is nothing more than a far-left coordinated attack on conservatism.
It is pathetic, it is a lie, and it has no place on any platform purporting to be a repository of factual information about the world.
The real-world consequences of liberal Wikipedia smears on organizations
What are the consequences for this smear?
Well, Wikipedia data has real-life consequences for any business that is unfortunate enough to be listed on it.
When you Google the name of an entity, and that entity is represented on Wikipedia with its own article, Google’s search algorithm pulls content from the entity’s Wikipedia article in its “Knowledge Panel” — the image on the top-right of any Google search.
Case in point:
The Knowledge Panel is a prominent component of search results. And the impact that Wikipedia has on the panel is clear: it runs the show.
Note the Wikipedia link at the end of the paragraph at the top.
Also note: It is described as a “far-right” and “opinion” website.
Note that T.D. Adler used to write on Wikipedia until he was banned. The reason?
He privately reported conflicts of interest violations being done by Wikipedia’s administrators.
So much for fairness.
Lucian Wintrich and Gateway Pundit Apparent Subjects of Wikipedia Citogenesis Attack
In a Medium article published under the same title as the heading above, T.D. Adler — former Wikipedia editor who had edited under the username “The Devil’s Advocate” and was subsequently banned after submitting a private complaint about conflict-of-interest edits by the site’s administrators — discussed how Wikipedia’s liberal editors cite “news” stories that themselves use Wikipedia as their source, as a source.
Sound confusing?
Following Gateway Pundit reporter Lucian Wintrich being arrested at a speaking engagement for grabbing at an activist attempting to steal his notes, Wikipedia editors began making negative edits to his page. Some edits questioning Gateway Pundit’s reputation for accuracy cited Washington Post articles that appeared to get their characterization from Wikipedia’s page for the outlet.
The edits were largely copied from the Gateway Pundit page where the same articles were cited. Other media outlets also appear to have based descriptions of Gateway Pundit off its Wikipedia page.
In a nutshell, liberal Wikipedia editors — hand-in-hand with the liberal fake media — cite each other in their work as credible sources of information.
If it sounds too outlandish to be true, well then, you haven’t met a real liberal in 2020 yet.
— Mainstream Watcher (4/13/2020)
