51–60 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly to discredit it as having a political identity of its own or something because small group of people can be more biased openly than a large group?
Right, but this is Jimmy Wales pushing this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Universities skew younger even more than the internet does. I think there is an element of the left wanting to "fix" the world which appeals to young people, and the right wanting to "protect" the world from bad changes, which appeals to older more cautious people.
The US military also skews young but leans more towards the republican party. https://news.gallup.com/poll/118684/military-veterans-ages-t...
59% of millennials lean or identify as Democrat compared to 35% Republican https://www.people-press.org/2018/03/01/1-generations-party-...
In the arts and music, many paintings, musical compositions, etc. don't have much written, or it's poorly written, by a non-English writer, etc.
I tried to write an article about my college a cappella group and it got rejected for not being famous enough. I thought that was a bit silly because my group was just as famous as random tiny towns in the middle of nowhere...shrug.
I'd encourage you all to join Wikipedia and make edits to anything you see that's amiss!
It would be interesting to redo this analysis now. 2006 was a long time ago. In 2006 wikipedia was in a very rapid growth phase; lots of topics still didn't have good coverage yet. In 2020, I can't remember a recent time where a mainstream topic didn't have extensive coverage on en wikipedia. Do the masses still write most of Wikipedia now that the low hanging fruit has been written?
I realize "do most people edit Wikipedia" is different from "are most Wikipedia edits from casual users", but it was an eye-opening interaction for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The political bias of wikipedia editors is horrible in most smaller countries. You mention Israel and Croatia. I can add Sweden. For an example, compare the wikipedia entries of the two largest parties in the Swedish parliament. One, Socialdemokraterna, starts with a blurb on how the party provides public welfare and the party slogan ("av var och en efter förmåga, åt var och en efter behov"). Compare with the second…
You may be correct but your proof suffers from the the fallacy of the middle ground. Unbiased reality by no means implies that the number of scandals, controversial quotes, achievements or even the relevance of the party slogan must be similar for both sides.
Wales is right about one thing, though. This fact does have enormous policy implications. If Wikipedia is written by occasional contributors, then growing it requires making it easier and more rewarding to contribute occasionally. Instead of trying to squeeze more work out of those who spend their life on Wikipedia, we need to broaden the base of those who contribute just a little bit. The problem is that, as a commu…
This has been EXACTLY my experience and it really really turned me off from even bothering in the future. :(
Wales is right about one thing, though. This fact does have enormous policy implications. If Wikipedia is written by occasional contributors, then growing it requires making it easier and more rewarding to contribute occasionally. Instead of trying to squeeze more work out of those who spend their life on Wikipedia, we need to broaden the base of those who contribute just a little bit. The problem is that, as a commu…
[1] It's a very prettied-up domain-specific language but it's still copyleft software.
Wales is right about one thing, though. This fact does have enormous policy implications. If Wikipedia is written by occasional contributors, then growing it requires making it easier and more rewarding to contribute occasionally. Instead of trying to squeeze more work out of those who spend their life on Wikipedia, we need to broaden the base of those who contribute just a little bit. The problem is that, as a commu…
From my experience with trying to contribute to the Hebrew version, try contributing focusing on expanding an existing article and watch what happens. In my case there was a very strong push back even against adding links that expand on issues mentioned which imho helped to balance an obvious slant. I gave up after a while. At university of course you’re warned not to use Wikipedia, it’s not acceptable as a reference…
The reason for this is too often misconstrued as being that Wikipedia is somehow misleading. The reality is that you do you reference something that is not a primary source. When everything on Wikipedia ostensibly has to link to something, it is just lazy to cite "wikipedia" as source for something.
I mean, I imagine you couldn't just say "New York Library" as a source for a fact either in university. You'd cite the actual source.