User:Lionelt/Countering liberal bias
This is an Neutral point of view policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community . Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This essay will assist editors in identifying liberal bias in Wikipedia pages and provide strategies for countering liberal bias. Wikipedia has been frequently criticized as having a liberal bias. Even Jimbo Wales has speculated that the Wikipedia community is left-leaning. All pages on Wikipedia must conform to the
Criticism of Wikipedia's liberal bias
A criticism of Wikipedia is that a politically
In a September 2010 issue of the conservative weekly Human Events, Rowan Scarborough presented a critique of Wikipedia's coverage of American politicians prominent in the approaching midterm elections as evidence of systemic liberal bias.[6] Scarborough compares the biographical articles of liberal and conservative opponents in Senate races in the Alaska Republican primary and the Delaware and Nevada general election, emphasizing the quantity of negative coverage of tea party-endorsed candidates. He also cites some criticism by Lawrence Solomon and quotes in full the lead section of Wikipedia's article on its rival Conservapedia as evidence of an underlying bias.Neutral point of view
- NPOV policy
Building a neutral encyclopedia is of the utmost importance. Bias in articles negatively affects the reputation of the project. The NPOV policy was instituted to ensure that content is written from a neutral point of view:[7]
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia... This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.
- Minority viewpoints
When viewpoints expressed by opponents and critics of liberal ideology are in the minority, they must still be given appropriate weight. From the "Due and undue weight" section (
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views.
- Opposing views
When a liberal point of view is challenged or contradicted by a reliable source, that opposition must be reflected in the article. From the "Balance" section (
when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources...
- Editor bias
Every editor comes to Wikipedia with their own biases. The NPOV tutorial says "Everybody has a point of view. Though 99% of the world may see something exactly the way you do, your view is still just one of many possible views that might be reasonably held."[8] And in the "Neutral point of view/FAQ" we find: "There's no such thing as objectivity. Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that."[9]
Criticism sections
Criticism sections generally are to be avoided. The "Article structure" section (
How to counter liberal bias
The NOV Policy recommends using the
Common issues
Issue | Remedy |
---|---|
stating opinion as fact | add inline-text attribution |
criticism section | fold debate into narrative |
quote from participant in heated debate | replace with summary written in an impartial tone |
fundamentalist, controversial, anti-gay | remove contentious labels unless supported by reliable sources ( WP:LABEL )
|
many state, most believe | rewrite or use {{ WP:WEASEL )
|
so-called, alleged | use called ( WP:ALLEGED )
|
claimed, asserted | replace with said, stated, described ( WP:CLAIM )
|
tangentially related bias | trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content ( WP:COAT )
|
scare quotes | remove ( WP:BADEMPHASIS )
|
other bias | rewrite; if especially contentious move to talk ( WP:NPOVFAQ )
|
- BLPs
Issue | Remedy |
---|---|
negative allegation--single source | remove immediately ( WP:WELLKNOWN )
|
material irrelevant to notability of non public person | remove immediately ( WP:NPF )
|
harmful statement about a small group--poor source | remove immediately ( WP:BLPGROUP )
|
Templates
|
|
See also
- Wikipedia:Controversial articles
- Wikipedia:Systemic bias
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias
- Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
- Articles
- Media bias in the United States#Liberal bias
- Higher education in the United States#Political views, discusses liberal views of professors
References
- ^ Mark Glaser (2006-04-21). "Wales Discusses Political Bias on Wikipedia". PBS Mediashift. Retrieved 2007-08-21.
- ^ Johnson, Bobbie (2007-03-01). "Conservapedia—the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2010-03-27.
- ^ Turner, Adam (2007-03-05). "Conservapedia aims to set Wikipedia right". IT Wire. Retrieved 2008-05-12.
- ^ Doug Huntington (2007-05-09). "'Design' Proponents Accuse Wikipedia of Bias, Hypocrisy". The Christian Post. Retrieved 2007-08-09.
- ^ Solomon, Lawrence (2008-07-08). "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming". National Review. CBSNews.com. Retrieved 2008-07-20.
- ^ Scarborough, Rowan (2010-09-27). Wikipedia "Whacks the Right". Human Events. Retrieved 2010-10-03.
{{cite web}}
: Check|url=
value (help) - ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV
- ^ a b http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
- ^ a b http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GOOGLE
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ ...often requires a more involved process to get the opinions of other editors. It's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page or at a relevant WikiProject
External links
- WCFJ search engine, search engine by Western Center for Journalismdesigned to selectively search "alternbative" media sources
- SurgeUSA search engine, search engine designed to selectively search "alternative" sources
- Yippy, Yippy is a family friendly search engine
- Searchasite, tool to search within a specified URL, e.g. www.foxnews.com