[eldavojohn]

This is a very poorly written article that myopically focuses on only the most extremely recent events in the culture war. Wouldn't a better article look at how wikipedia handles, say, the the civil rights act of 1964 and the rise of Evangelicism? Things that are, you know, many years ago and should be much more stable articles than these fly-by-night everyone is having a conniption over at this very moment?

Reading this article is kind of like I'm watching Jerry Springer except it's not as entertaining. As things stabilize the articles get better and as time stretches to infinity so too does the editing work eliminate bias on Wikipedia. Is it the greatest thing ever that you should unquestioningly read? Not even close. The author thinks it should be impossibly neutral. Nirvana fallacy.

[voldacar]

Ah so newly created articles are "noisy" in terms of bias and over time they quiet down and approach a neutral point of view? if this is true, you should be able to show me a bunch of articles about polarizing current events that are heavily biased in the opposite direction to the ones featured in the article.

(I don't think this is possible, therefore I think you are wrong)

[eldavojohn]

Nowhere did I claim that there were equally slanted liberal compared to conservative changes. Are we going to play the "reality has a well known liberal bias" game? Am I supposed to find articles on wikipedia that claim Biden lost the election or that no one should get a vaccine? I mean, this is a political statement: "Now that we have tons of vaccines, every death due to covid is a travesty." You know at least in the USA it's hard to find mainstream media that is conservative because those views have become so asinine. Is that my problem? Is that Wikipedia's problem?

What next? Are you going to complain that 98% of college professors are liberal? Okay, go change it. Enjoy trying to get people who enjoy liberal endeavors to promote conservative views. Am I shocked that the people who want to freely edit and debate articles on a website for no profit happen to slant liberal? Not really.

> (I don't think this is possible, therefore I think you are wrong)

What part exactly was I wrong about? I suggested you look at articles from 30-50 years ago and point out the liberal slant. Instead you invented a claim that I did not make so that I would be incorrect. Strawman.

If we cared enough about this, we'd all be reading conservapedia.com.

[justshowpost]

Its been a year since the first death in George Floyd riots. How many time needed for Wikipedia to become neutralized?

[wrycoder]

It's rather hard to find examples from the other side of the aisle on Wikipedia.