Talk:Ideological bias on Knowledge/Archive 5

1665:

lack of ideologia bias" or "The existence of ideological bias or its absence" or similar, because the body of research summarized in the first part of the article studies that (the existence or absence of IB) and not the perception of IB (which would mean studying the opinions about WP). This proposal is if we are really afraid that the first line might ...bias the biased unable to read the article in full and grasp the fuzziness of the evidence/facts available (whose balance is neither categorically black nor white).

1635:, and so on, virtually for all pages of social and cultural domains. The point seems frankly preposterous and defensive, the title as it is introduces the topic and presents facts and assessments for the reader to judge. I also find ironic the distinction between opinion and facts as being biased by the title of the article. This implies that one does not trust the capacity of the reader to make his/her own mind, and therefore the need to shape that mind starting from the title. Sounds quite biased to me ! 31: 327:"Historically, 'far-right politics' has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views." 94: 2540: 613:

review, but that was the choice in that project about this topic). Compared to the current version of this article, it appears to me that the text may (1) extend the literature reviewed (2) do away with references to non academic surces (3) move beyond the US focus, currently prevailing. For advice from the curators of this article as full or partial contribution to section #1.

2582:: The evidence of anti-Israeli bias is well documented in a published report. There is also already a section on this Article regarding alleged accusations of pro-Israel content on Knowledge. In order to be neutral, and show both viewpoints, the above section should be added or the alleged pro-Israel accusations (see CAMERA campaign) must be deleted. 1251: 1086:

was not designed to produce an assessment of the slant overall in absolute terms. In short, the paper does not say what we says it said, and we are not meant to interpret their results. The paper puts forward interesting results possibly relevant to this article but the summary should stick to what the authors say.

1798:

that it’s not a RS when the same source is used for other articles and wikis. If you want to look at clear example look how the Canada convoy wiki depicts civil disobedience with extreme over quoting of unverified media reports. They refuse to accept video as a RS even though it’s very clear what is being said

2204:

said in an YouTube interview, the religious POV of Knowledge is that of mainline Protestantism and liberal Catholicism. Generally, I don't think that he is right about Knowledge, but he is right about Knowledge having such POV. And he is right that Knowledge renders the view of the establishment—just

655:

Update the title of the first subsection to "Presence of ideological bias in entries related to politics" to reflect the broader scope of the issue beyond content solely related to US politics. This change acknowledges that additional academic literature addresses the presence of ideological bias in

260:

That's what I always understood the term far right to mean and what it means in much of the literature. But it also included a number of similar groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, that did not derive from historical fascism or nazism. Hence the need for an umbrella term that grouped them all together.

1797:

I have had the issue of being banned by “trusted” editors for extremely minor infractions without warning. This appears like it could be intentional to stop others from achieving higher level edit status. This also makes the part where “anyone can edit” moot as they are often reverted with the claim

1649:

Not really as most historians and economists say there was a great depression. The problem here is there is no clear consensus about this topic. Also "This implies that one does not trust the capacity of the reader to make his/her own mind, and therefore the need to shape that mind starting from the

1012:

thanks for adding that very relevant paper. However, where does the paper say that "Knowledge's content leaned slightly liberal"? I cant find that conclusion in it and I am not sure that the study was designed to indicate the extent of political slant as such. The gist of the paper is different than

887:

There are a handful of sources on the talk page banner at RSPS. But reading through a few of them, they seem to be actually pretty positive. So if this is going to get any traction, we're gonna need to start with sources that specifically mention RSPS, and specifically in a critical way dealing with

721:

on this topic has constraints that a discussion doesn't have. Since hundreds of things lead up to any happening, someone can subjectively pick any of them as the "cause". Of course the big "cause" is people seeking to further their real world agendas by biasing articles. This is unavoidable and so

1085:

They dont say it probably because the test (figure 1) was not designed to answer the question implied by our line now. They rather wanted to test the difference between the encyclopedias on a selected sample to test the hypothesis over the influences of the respective declared policies . The sample

798:

page. It has Fox News and New York Post listed as red for politics. Yet has New York Times, CNN and MSNBC green. Just the Biden laptop coverup alone should be enough to call them into question. I can’t argue against the Fox News bias, but it is just ignorant to be blind or lack any insight into the

702:

Thanks. Your comment highlights the importance of this article and its potential for expansion. IMO the existing literature does not entirely align with the viewpoint that Knowledge's systems are so game-able. I rather find it interesting the hypothesis that increasing transparency in users' actual

685:

biased coverage, and often are structured and used to actually enable or promote biased coverage. And more fundamentally how bias is defined by Knowledge. If you define neutral as "we just cover what the wiki-whitelisted people who control the megaphones say" then you certainly end up with a biased

680:

More power to you. I was just commenting that when people talk about ideological bias in Knowledge they are usually talking about left/right bias in English Knowledge. (With "left/right" usually defined by the US meanings of those terms). To me, the social mechanisms are pretty simple. It starts

612:

the review of academic literature about this topic. This is a text I originally wrote for the Italian WP (intended to be an extended version of this page, but the page was eventually not accepted for publication in the main namespace and was published as essay - debatable choice, being a literature

1693:

Under the current title, IMO it covers a wide range of possibilities from "pervasive bias" to "miniscule bias". And I think that there is a lot of sourcing that it falls somewhere within that range. "Perceived bias" carries a pretty strong connotation that it's a mere perception. I think that the

1664:

I find your point a circular logic. However, I would like to understand whether we are discussing here the title of the article or the first sentence of the inception paragraph. If the latter case, since the incipit should summarize the article, I propose that we may phrase it as "The existence or

1570:

There are edit wars seemingly occuring, of which I take part, between "Perceived ideological bias on Knowledge" vs "Ideological bias on Knowledge". Some are disputing the fact that there is any ideological bias on this platform to begin with. May those of you that dispute this perhaps discuss this

628:

Looks like good work. But if you are proposing putting in en masse, scrutiny of such requires as massive "compare and contrast" project. Also, I think that what might be seen as a "US focus" is inevitable (EN Knowledge and the left/right sides of the US political divide, which is what most such

344:

That is the historical definition. But more recently it is often applied to any groups that are to the right of the traditional right-wing parties. In the 1980s, there were a number of new parties with no connection with historical fascism that advocated for lower taxes or restricting immigration.

2280:

The reason articles on evolution pay little attention to creationism is entirely based on the degree of its acceptance in reliable sources. Knowledge editors do not evaluate generally accepted beliefs, they just report them. If people in the ancient or medieval worlds had prepared an encyclopedia

665:

Regarding your point about US politics, as an encyclopedic entry, I tend to think that the article should evolve over time to capture the underlying social mechanisms at play, regardless of whether they are specific to the USA or occur elsewhere. The intention should be to focus on the underlying

659:

Remove references to media sources that were initially included to support the case studies. They seem to me unnecessary as they do not contribute to the main limitation of the article, which is the absence of secondary sources. This limitation may align with the current state of research in this

828:

During the election in 2020 NYPost editor Emma Jo Morris published verifiable info on president Biden’s involvement with his son’s Ukrainian business deals- a story now accepted as true. At the time, prior to the election, Politico, CNN, MSNBC and others published unverified reports that it was

113:

Second, the bar for what passes as far right is being constantly lowered in common usage. It's up to a source like this to be more disciplined. The pages on the left-right political spectrum are explicit about those meanings. Articles claiming the extremes should cite which characteristics of a

2084:

The "neutrality" policy of Wiipedia all but guarantees that articles will have an ideological bias. That's because articles will give greater space to information and views that are most strongly supported in reliable sources. So for example, articles about evolution will provide more space to

2428:

Since October 7, Knowledge has been accused of having an anti-Israel bias. This is supported by a publication and article on same. Since this Knowledge entry relates to Ideological bias on Knowledge, there is no reason why this fact should not be included. It is not cherry picked. It is well

1104:

The slightly liberal part seems to come from the graph in the study. I think another study said that Knowledge is more biased than Britannica simply because it has more content than Britannica does, meaning there is more space for biased material, so that might be why the graph shows a slight

1492:

Perceived ideological bias on Knowledge, especially on its English-language edition, has been the subj.... What aboout ACTUAL ideological bias? Knowledge has an idological bias of the western sphere, can this be discussed or even demonstrated by any source that isnt banned by the glowies?

2302:

I'm with you in spirit. I just think that choosing an example that involves true and false on objective matters of fact and saying that the choice is just from tallying up opinions of wp:RS's / wp:"R"S's might contribute to the problem. One can assert that the latter method is the

681:

with there being some type of real world contest/tussle. And the combatants see tilting the related Knowledge articles as a way to further their cause. The more complex issue is how Wkikpedia systems intended to prevent that bias don't prevent it, are easily game-able to

1778:

Yes, there have been studies/prominent figures describing a left-wing bias on Knowledge. Whether these are true or not, the mention of "white-washing" is likely due to the fact that most editors are White, and tend to write more about White people than any other race. See

160:

There is inconsistency in the use of terminology to describe the Right in reliable sources, which is acknowledged in literature about the Right. Part of the reason for this is that European and U.S. politics were historically studied in isolation. Some writers, such as

2049:

The scope of noticeboards is too narrow to allow for the open and transparent discussions needed to resolve the problem and/or perception of there being a problem. An open publicly accessible forum for discussing Knowledge has been needed for a very long time.

1742:--- Knowledge editors overwhelmingly are leftist and that bias shows quite clearly. Look at the article for Robert Hur. They put his political donation history in his personal life section. Did they do that on Jack Smith's personal info? --------------- 2642:"Has been accused of" is unacceptable wording per WEASEL, You need to explain who is making the accusations. It's like saying the U.S. has been accused of faking the moon landing. Editors want to know who these accusers are and how accepted their views are. 301:

Are you sure that far-right isn't just becoming more prevalent and mainstream, resulting in the increased usage of the word? I agree that there is confusion around the meaning of the word, but ultimately we have to respect whatever reliable sources say.

105:

I'm new at this and uncertain if this is the correct forum, but it seems as good a good starting point as any. I've noticed edits in an article changed from "right-wing" to "far right-wing" then back again. This worries me for several reasons.

120:

Fourth, the wisdom of crowds idea relies on homogeneity. If you target slant analysis at page level, things may look balanced. Within an individual page there can be fierce activity with one set of voices dominating through superior numbers.

2185:

If you have good sources for it. I expect that only sources in favor of specific immaterial things - those in favor of specific religions and there fore biased against materialism as well as against other non-materialisms - will mention it.

1835:. Its sole purpose is to improve the article using reliable sources, and you are not doing that. Deleting your comment above was the correct thing to do, and it is your problem that you not understand that, not Knowledge's or Aquillion's. -- 860:

The fact that MSM reported people who claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story was disinformation is evidence of their bias, rather than their reliability. But all media are biased since they have to select which stories to cover and which to

1816:

To make it more obvious Aquillion immediately tried to revert my comment to hide it under the claim I’m a “blocked user” yet they themselves have violated the 3 revert rule within the last 5 days where I was banned for a formatting error

1745:

How is this white washed? It is supported by Harvard studies that wikipedia overall has a left bias. The allowed news sources a lot of them are very left wing like vox, slate. Yet there is nothing to balance this. Its shameful really.

2124:

Science as commonly thought of today i.e a materialistic worldview where understanding is dominated by “consensus” which helps us determine metaphysical reality, right & wrong & influence politics: this is very much an ideology

426:

is the fear or dislike for anything foreign or "strange", and manifests as a " fear of losing a national, ethnic, or racial identity". All three cases involve some kind of in-group seeking action against out-groups or the perceived

1033:

As can be seen in Fig. 1, we found the pattern we predicted, with Conser-vapedia articles leaning toward the conservative view and RationalWiki leaning toward theliberal view—with Knowledge and Britannica as a homogeneous subgroup

348:

To cite a concrete example, Nigel Farage's UKIP was to the right of the Tories, but it certainly was not as extreme as the Nick Griffin's BNP. The two parties were distinct and joined separate caucuses in the European Parliament.

490:

That's why reliable sources either implicitly or explicitly define the terms they are using. My concern is when Knowledge articles use these terms without doing this. But that's nothing we can resolve on this discussion page.

1671:

Nevertheless, I maintain that the concern on the first sentence (and more so if about the title) is misplaced, because it introduces the topic as a subject of inquiry and does not represent, per se, a statement of facts.

1028:

From Figure 1, I guess. Except because the error bar for Knowledge just crosses over the middle they don't actually describe it as "leaned slightly liberal", they instead just say it's "in between" the other two wikis:

109:

First, the power of a single word. The slant analysis doesn't seem to allow for this. It might match "right-wing" and "far right-wing" as the same, when they trigger a wildly different set of thoughts and associations.

2371:

Which is why we have an article on it, but this is about a more general idea of bias policing. Which is not something we should even be discussing on this talk page, as this is not about improving this article.

2257:

Reinforcing what Hob Gadlin said, that was a bad example. In this context, bias is bias against widely held credible opinions views. In the article, it is against fringe views which conflict with reality.

171:

What's important is that in every article it is clear what is meant by each term. If you think that Knowledge should have a consistent use of terminology, then you should bring it up at the Village Pump.

1193:

Unlike Knowledge, the Wikimedia foundation is partisan, and there have been many criticisms made of their ideological positions and claims that those positions may leak into Knowledge. (For example, see

2475:

sets a requirement for sources to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Since when do Zionist organizations have anything resembling a reputation for fact-checking? They produce their own

511:

Even with two baskets I think we can agree too many things are in the far-right basket which dilute its historical usage. Saying "far-right" is code for dismissing opinion or policy as invalid and even

2274:

I am using the term bias to mean "a tendency to prefer one person or thing to another." (Collins Dictionary) In this case, the bias is to give weight reflecting relative acceptance in reliable sources.

2444:

Not sure the World Jewish Congress is a good source for this as characterizations of bias should come from unbiased sources. In any case, there will be suggestions and actions of bias from both sides.

857:

Reliability is not based on the political bias of a source, but in its accuracy. Knowledge editors have determined that Fox News and the New York Post are not sufficiently accurate in their reporting.

387:

I'm new to this, but I wonder if explicitly identifying those waves in sections which can be referenced individually might solve the problem the same way dictionaries do with overloaded word meanings.

722:

saying that it is the "cause" is like saying that gravity is the cause of airplane crashes. So for me the more useful question / "cause" is: "What in Knowledge allows (or encourages) it to happen"?

2015: 1818: 1803: 1575: 1494: 168:

Some editors complain that the Left is treated differently. That's because left-wing groups typically have identifiable ideologies, such as socialism or communism, while right-wing groups do not.

2343:

Knowledge has a strong bias in favor of accuracy. How do we change this so that we can reduce accuracy to result in a better read for those whose biases only make sense given inaccuracy?

1198:.) Should this be mentioned in this article? While indirect, it's a valid concern, and it reflects poorly on Knowledge if it appears to be ignoring the existence of complaints like this. 1153:"Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." 124:

I didn't want to mention it, but someone is bound to ask. The article in question is about a political party called Reform UK. I feel confident similar pages will suffer the same way.

165:, agree with you that the term right-wing is preferrable to far right. Oddly, the term right-wing today does infer extremism and is not used as a self-description except by extremists. 2445: 1609:

The sourcing largely presents the various discussions of bias in this article as a matter of opinion and not fact; therefore, we can't present it as fact in the article voice. Hence

508:

Agreed. We've inherited broad brush terminology from the French Revolution... then made the brush even broader! I'm trying to see a way to use the existing terms more constructively.

1802:

and compare it to the gorge Floyd protest which where the most destructive protest in North America history that had a bunch of deaths, a much longer blockade and actual violence.

1230:

For example, one writer claims that the Wikimedia Foundation is "partisan" because it supports a program to increase the participation of underrepresented minorities in Knowledge.

117:

Third, the to-and-fro of the edits would seem to indicate editors of different political views. It put me in mind of the Taiwan page being edited by ideologically opposed groups.

2014:

Is there a method to which pages can be reviewed for ideological bias? I feel If there was a forum to address these concerns then it could relieve a lot of debate on the subject

2029:

That's a huge topic involving editing practices at the individual article, and various policies, guidelines and noticeboards. A good place to start learning might be to watch

406:"feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views." Some of these overlap. 2223:. It keeps infecting more victims, and makes life worse for the world population. It does not give the infected any insight to the truth, or any particular reliability. 629:

discussions are about). Without that focus the subject of the article becomes thousands of subjects. Instances of bias of all of the Wikipedias on all of the subjects.

2200:

Christians + Muslims + Hindus are billions. Now, I am not saying they are right, nor am I saying they are wrong. Just that they are entitled to criticize Knowledge. As

1822: 1807: 2656:

Ok. The language should then state: "Knowledge has been accused by the World Jewish Congress of having an anti-Israel bias, especially since the October 7 attacks."

1360:

Vague assertions are not helpful. Assuming they decided to allow no binary genders, would not deciding to only allow binary genders have also been "picking a side"?

2171:

I'm not opposed to materialism, but the elephant in the room is that Knowledge leans towards materialism. That needs to be in the article, it's a glaring omission.

1968:

Most Knowledge articles have a good accuracy, but some of them seem to be (more or less) biased. An example is the section about "criminality" in the article below

2574::Under a heading labeled "Anti-Israel Bias", the following section should be added: "Since October 7, Knowledge has been accused of having an anti-Israel bias." 925:

Finding analysis of systemic causes would be a good thing. And IMO one of the most intelligent and useful things to cover compared to just general allegations.

2733: 2711: 979:. But again, we would need sources that specifically deal with it in terms of ideological bias on Knowledge, and not just vague suggestions of related topics. 2277:

Ideological bias shapes peoples' attitudes toward scientific information, and that becomes progressively so as one progresses from natural to social sciences.

795: 192:

I concluded that I'm showing my age (59) by associating the term with Nazism, Fascism, etc. It has now been conflated with a dozen or so additional meanings.

72: 67: 59: 2030: 2205:

that I think that's a feature, not a bug. So, yes, in both instances he is right about the POV, but he is wrong that that would be erroneous or mistaken.

1632: 381:

Lumping these together under a single term is unhelpful to the reader. They will interpret it according to their age, attitudes and political leanings.

829:“Russian disinformation”. It looks like those stories have all been removed from their sites, but I’m sure you can find them in the web archives. 1438: 324:

Probably both. The page on far-right would seem to indicate the addition of more characteristics classified as far-right is a significant factor:

2546:

This article isn't protected, so you should be able to edit it yourself. If you are still having problems editing it, please ask for advice at

1668:

Certainly the second and third parts of the article are a mix of facts and reported opinions and more difficult to categorize in one sentence.

330:

A term with 17 characteristics, any one of which might cause something or someone to be called far-right during discourse has little utility.

1980: 910:

I see no reason why (as long as it is sourced) we canot have a section on allegations of biases in the use or implementation of RS policies.

390:

As a bare minimum some terms should be moved to "right-wing", rather than "far-right" but I wouldn't know where to start to do that justice.

1750: 948: 1398:

I've had may fair share of disagreements with the Foundation, but yer gonna need something with more meat than a tweet to make your case.

189:

Thanks. That's interesting. I actually posted a reply including a quotation from the page for the term far -right, but it hasn't appeared.

1233:

One way to become better informed is to stop reading X posts. It attracts a lot of cranks who can't get their views published elsewhere.

2019: 1893: 1853: 1579: 1498: 577: 47: 17: 864:

In order to discuss banning Fox News in the article, you would need to provide sources that discussed potential bias in the decision.

666:

social dynamics rather than providing a mere listing of individual cases, to the extent that this is supported by current research.

1227:

The link is to a discussion involving unqualified people presenting their own conclusions based on a misrepresentation of sources.

448:

So it's an even bigger mess than I first thought. Way too much to lump under one, hyphenated tag of "far-right", wouldn't you say?

1119:

I corrected the text to summarize the conclusion of the paper and avoiding interpretations of data beyond what the authors say.

2700: 2689: 2521: 2406: 1437:

Knowledge has not picked one side on using gender pronouns. Instead, it follows the usage in reliable sources. See for example

976: 2734:

https://wjc-org-website.s3.amazonaws.com/horizon/assets/4eQd1wRR/the_bias_against_israel_in_english_wikipedia_240314_5-1.pdf

2712:

https://wjc-org-website.s3.amazonaws.com/horizon/assets/4eQd1wRR/the_bias_against_israel_in_english_wikipedia_240314_5-1.pdf

2121:

Science as narrowly defined by the scientific method: hypothesis, observations, results – you are correct is not an ideology

1764:

Care to link to this paper, as to the treat, we also use a lot of right-wing sources (such as the Times and the Telegraph).

1272:

Well, they did choose and mandate a side on the US culture war on pronouns (basing on biological sex vs. declared gender).

1188:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1483:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1627:

If we are to follow this reasoning, a lot of issues may qualify as "perceived". We should rename, for exemple, Perceived

1650:

title." is an odd thing to say when arguing for us to say something in our voice rather than letting the reader decide.

1448:

So the actual bias is toward reliable sources, whether using gender pronouns, or discussing evolution or climate change.

1976:

Some sentences in this article seem to be racist and not realistic. Even other articles seem to have similar problems.

563:

I don't know how to do that. I'm not even sure how to find my post unless someone replies to it... which they haven't!

867:

Incidentally, those other sources are not actually left-wing as the term is generally understood by informed people.

451:

Not sure if Knowledge can single handedly fix it, but one reliable source trying to shed some light would be a start.

431:". And some lucky group will inevitably get to be the favorite target for attacks by the fanatics of such ideologies. 703:

behaviors within their social mechanisms could potentially reduce the susceptibility of the system to manipulation.

2472: 2402: 652:

Add additional sources and case studies as reviewed in my sandbox to enhance the breadth and depth of the analysis.

38: 2647: 2447: 2286: 2090: 1984: 1455: 1238: 872: 496: 422:

seeks the superiority or dominance of one group over all others, and favors a "fanatical devotion" to the cause.

354: 266: 177: 2219:"Christians + Muslims + Hindus are billions." I tend to think about the spread of religion, as the spread of a 1754: 2307:

of bias and scrutinizing of that by sources could be a valid part of the content of this article. Sincerely,

1749:

A paper from harvard researchers found left wint editors are more active and partisan here. These are facts.

1464:

Would you say mandating that people not use the N-word when referencing others is part of a "US culture war"?

1155:

If anyone would like to suggest content to be added to this article, please present the suggestions alongside

952: 2033:

for a few weeks. But this talk page is limited to discussing improving this particular article. Sincerely,

2633: 2615: 2454: 2348: 1780: 1723: 1469: 1426: 1203: 2377: 2334: 1948: 1897: 1871: 1857: 1769: 1655: 1598: 1553: 1517: 1509: 1412: 1365: 1337: 1314: 1062: 993: 915: 902: 766: 568: 551: 537: 520: 481: 456: 395: 335: 283: 254: 243: 200: 151: 132: 1374:

Not about that. Just about words. Deciding whether or not one can use them to refer to biological sex.

2665: 2651: 2637: 2619: 2602: 2489: 2464: 2458: 2438: 2410: 2381: 2366: 2352: 2338: 2318: 2290: 2269: 2232: 2214: 2195: 2191: 2180: 2166: 2152: 2134: 2116: 2112: 2094: 2075: 2059: 2044: 2023: 2003: 1988: 1950: 1928: 1901: 1875: 1861: 1844: 1840: 1826: 1811: 1792: 1773: 1758: 1705: 1681: 1659: 1644: 1622: 1602: 1583: 1557: 1542: 1521: 1502: 1473: 1459: 1430: 1414: 1385: 1369: 1355: 1339: 1318: 1302: 1283: 1266: 1242: 1222: 1207: 1176: 1128: 1114: 1095: 1080: 1066: 1052: 1022: 995: 971: 956: 936: 919: 904: 876: 852: 838: 823: 808: 783: 768: 733: 712: 697: 675: 640: 622: 589: 585: 572: 555: 541: 524: 500: 485: 460: 440: 399: 358: 339: 316: 287: 270: 247: 230: 204: 181: 155: 136: 947:

Probably needs mentioning, as it was a highly controversial event being fought over here on Knowledge.

1994:

Not every criticism of or every inconvenient statistic for a racial minority group amounts to racism.

1488:

Perceived ideological bias on Knowledge, especially on its English-language edition, has been the subj

2643: 2362: 2297: 2282: 2210: 2176: 2086: 1999: 1924: 1451: 1234: 1169: 868: 834: 804: 609: 492: 363: 350: 311: 275: 262: 225: 186: 173: 2051: 2509: 2314: 2265: 2140: 2055: 2040: 1789: 1701: 1618: 1381: 1351: 1298: 1279: 932: 729: 693: 649:

thanks for your constructive feedback. I propose the following revisions to the secton "Analyses":

636: 2657: 2594: 2430: 1344:

I don't want to conduct the culture war here, just noting that they picked and mandated one side.

384:

I'm sure many people think UKIP was far-right, which loses the distinction from the BNP, EDL, etc.

2629: 2611: 2547: 2485: 2450: 2344: 2228: 2163: 2131: 1889:

He did not try to get justice but to add to the discussion related to the bias that Knowledge has

1832: 1719: 1465: 1422: 1199: 1144: 1110: 436: 428: 415: 843:

It's a story now accepted as true by whom? (Remember we're taking about reliable sources here.)

238:

I posted it here, but pasted with all the hyperlinks in. Pasting as "plain text" has solved it.

2064:

Do you know of a venue that can be used for this? Failing that, many Wikipedians have blogs: —

2661: 2598: 2566: 2434: 2373: 2330: 1935: 1867: 1765: 1651: 1594: 1549: 1548:

I am still non the wiser, I assumed it was an insult, but now I am less sure about even that.

1513: 1508:

Is that ideological though? Yes we can discuss this. And yes we have an article discussing it

1399: 1361: 1324: 1310: 1076: 1058: 1048: 980: 911: 889: 753: 564: 560: 547: 533: 529: 516: 505: 477: 452: 391: 331: 279: 239: 211: 196: 147: 128: 1965:

Maybe I should write this text somewhere else, but I can not find out where. Sorry for that!

2701:

https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/wikipedia-entries-show-anti-israel-bias-says-wjc

2690:

https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/wikipedia-entries-show-anti-israel-bias-says-wjc

2522:

https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/wikipedia-entries-show-anti-israel-bias-says-wjc

2187: 2148: 2108: 2071: 1836: 1677: 1640: 1628: 1538: 1537:

is, and this makes neither sense nor does it look like an attempt to improve the article. --

1262: 1218: 1124: 1091: 1018: 967: 848: 819: 779: 708: 671: 618: 581: 407: 1799: 127:

Again, my apologies if this is not the correct forum. Please move and advise if necessary.

2358: 2357:

We are not saying this bias is bad. But we have to call it for what it is, namely a bias.

2206: 2172: 1995: 1920: 1527: 1162: 830: 800: 660:

domain, although some recent primary research papers include extensive literature reviews.

321: 303: 235: 217: 1195: 299:

Second, the bar for what passes as far right is being constantly lowered in common usage.

216:

Where did you post a reply? I'm not seeing it your contributions, did it fail to post? ––

2722: 1883:

Not about any regular sort of action but about action taken from a position of influence

1785: 1614: 1148: 646: 93: 2625: 2481: 2399: 2224: 2158: 2126: 1213:

A lot of people, including me, don't use Twitter/X, so that link is of no use to us.

1106: 1009: 752:

Anybody know where the cite is for the first paragraph in the collaboration section?

445: 432: 515:

It might not be possible, but my thinking is evolving because of this conversation.

2201: 1590: 1156: 1072: 1044: 162: 143: 1919:

Just a remark: "liberal" means "moderate right-wing". It does not mean "leftist".

1152: 2144: 2065: 1673: 1636: 1258: 1214: 1120: 1087: 1014: 963: 844: 815: 775: 704: 667: 614: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2477: 1105:

difference between Britannica and Knowledge, but I might just be speculating.

423: 419: 195:

I do think it would help to make that distinction. Where is The Village Pump?

366:

Exactly. I can see four distinct waves in the text from the "far-right" page.

1566:"Perceived ideological bias on Knowledge" vs "Ideological bias on Knowledge" 100: 1291:

Note: I edited to add "and mandate" simultaneous with Slatersteven's post.

2588:

References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button)

2104: 411: 2468: 2220: 2100: 345:

They are usually for want of a better term called right-wing populists.

378:

4 A contemporary addition other people or parties seen as reactionary.

1534: 1247:

I think creative freedom should remain the cornerstone of Knowledge.

580:

contains all your edits. I cannot see any Village Pump edit there. --

1880:

About the action an user in a position of influence on Knowledge did

774:

Added, gone missing in my earlier editing. Thanks for spotting it.

2463:"Not sure the World Jewish Congress is a good source for this" The 1979:

Feel free to move what I write here to some better place! Regards!

1886:

Fact that IS RELEVANT due to the nature of the topic discussed here

2281:

using Knowledge's policies, it would have read very differently.

2510:

https://wjc-org-website.s3.amazonaws.com/horizon/assets/4eQd1wRR

2610:

You have four sources which all point to the same poor source.

2534: 1971: 414:, supremacy, or control of one nation over others, and favors 25: 1866:

No, it's a complaint about a user, that is what ANI is for.

2512:

the_bias_against_israel_in_english_wikipedia_240314_5-1.pdf

375:

3 An expansion to include populist and nationalist parties.

114:

person, or party justify the addition of the prefix "far".

2085:

material supporting the theory than to those opposing it.

1071:(It doesn't say it was in the centre either to be clear). 686:

definition of "neutral" caused by a systemic problem.

1057:

Or in the center. This has fail V and should be remvoed.

532:

I posted it on The Village Pump. Let's see what happens.

2429:

supported and it directly relates to the topic at hand.

1800:

https://x.com/derekkaior/status/1750124209110442129?s=46

2723:

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-792808

372:2 Neo-Nazis, etc. which attempt to revive those. 1526:Knowledge is about what sources say, not about 1892:In this context the complaint holds relevance 2562:What I think should be changed (format using 369:1 The original Fascism, Nazism and Falangism. 8: 796:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Perennial sources 476:Problem is "right-wing" is even more vague. 2031:Knowledge:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard 1013:what is now portrayed in the article, IMO. 2417:The following discussion has been closed. 2395: 2329:Yes, and we are exercising it, consensus. 1731:The following discussion has been closed. 1714: 1633:Ideological repression in the Soviet Union 794:There should be a section questioning the 656:political content across various contexts. 604:Proposed extension of the Analyses section 2099:That is not an ideological bias because 1574:P.S. I am on the anti-percieved side :D 2682: 2502: 2016:2001:1970:4AE5:A300:A13B:D3C6:5D5D:5078 1852:Its a complaint about Knowledge's bias 1849:bringing up a problem isn't a forum tho 1043:Probably we should say the same thing. 2449:. That happens when you are unbiased. 1819:2605:8D80:664:58B3:4DD1:8C4A:8944:B63E 1804:2605:8D80:664:58B3:4DD1:8C4A:8944:B63E 1610: 1576:2A00:23CC:B589:EF01:410D:3FD6:6C1F:867 1512:which would be the place to put this. 1495:2A00:23CC:B589:EF01:410D:3FD6:6C1F:867 1032: 298: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1972:https://en.wikipedia.org/Finnish_Kale 1530:. Your question does not matter here. 1421:I hear they're even against slavery. 7: 1323:Apathy. It's remarkably effortless. 1184:The following discussion is closed. 1145:Knowledge is not a discussion forum 578:Special:Contributions/Chas newport 24: 18:Talk:Ideological bias on Knowledge 146:say, so what do the sources say? 2538: 1479:The discussion above is closed. 1249: 257:. Let us know if you post there. 92: 29: 1445:, Raillan Brooks April 5, 2017) 977:Gamergate (harassment campaign) 1: 2392:Anti-Israel Bias on Knowledge 2045:22:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC) 2024:20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC) 1827:21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 1812:21:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 1706:21:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 1474:21:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 1460:20:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 1431:15:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 1415:15:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 1386:21:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 1370:15:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 1356:15:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 1340:14:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 1319:14:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 1303:15:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 1284:14:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 1267:15:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 1243:04:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 1223:03:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 1208:03:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 1177:21:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 608:I have extended and updated 1793:22:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC) 1774:17:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC) 1759:17:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC) 1682:22:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC) 1660:12:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC) 1645:12:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC) 1623:11:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC) 1603:11:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC) 1589:Make a case there is, using 1584:03:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC) 1558:17:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC) 1522:11:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC) 1503:03:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC) 1439:"‘He,’ ‘She,’ ‘They’ and Us" 1159:that support the claims. — 1129:19:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC) 1115:20:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) 1096:19:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) 1081:13:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) 1067:13:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC) 1053:13:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC) 1023:12:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC) 814:What Biden laptop coverup? 2754: 2473:Knowledge:Reliable sources 2382:10:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 2367:10:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 2353:10:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 2339:12:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC) 2319:17:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC) 2291:03:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 2270:18:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 2196:06:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 2181:10:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 2167:15:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC) 2153:03:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC) 2135:03:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC) 2117:15:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) 2095:10:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC) 2076:10:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 2060:10:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 1961:description of criminality 1951:13:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 1929:14:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC) 1902:13:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 1876:13:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC) 1862:12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC) 1845:07:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC) 1147:for political topics. Per 996:11:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC) 972:00:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC) 957:13:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC) 2490:00:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 2459:10:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 2439:02:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 2411:00:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 1137:Wikimedia foundation bias 937:13:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 920:10:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 905:10:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 877:09:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 853:03:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 839:03:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 824:02:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 809:02:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 784:19:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 769:11:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 641:14:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC) 623:13:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC) 2666:01:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC) 2652:04:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC) 2638:01:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC) 2624:Also looks like another 2620:01:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC) 2603:01:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC) 2580:Why it should be changed 2420:Please do not modify it. 2233:03:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 2215:23:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 2004:23:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 1989:22:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 1934:Sir, this is a Wendy's. 1734:Please do not modify it. 1694:current title is best. 1533:I had to look up what a 1481:Please do not modify it. 1186:Please do not modify it. 734:17:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC) 713:12:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC) 698:12:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC) 676:08:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC) 590:14:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 573:14:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 556:13:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 542:12:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 525:12:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 501:11:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 486:10:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 461:14:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 441:13:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 400:07:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 359:15:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 340:15:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 317:13:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 288:06:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 271:13:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 248:07:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) 231:13:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 205:13:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 182:13:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 156:11:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 137:10:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 1781:Knowledge:Systemic bias 1718:This is going nowhere. 546:You have? Link please? 1510:Criticism of Knowledge 418:to achieve its goals. 255:Knowledge:Village pump 2465:World Jewish Congress 2403:ScottishFinnishRadish 748:Collaboration source? 42:of past discussions. 1309:How could they not? 88:When far is too far. 2141:this is not a forum 278:I've posted there. 1187: 888:ideological bias. 790:“Reliable Sources” 416:political violence 2555: 2554: 2533: 2532: 2161: 2139:No it's not, and 2129: 2074: 1958: 1957: 1185: 1174: 1004:Krebs et al, 2023 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2745: 2736: 2731: 2725: 2720: 2714: 2709: 2703: 2698: 2692: 2687: 2571: 2565: 2542: 2541: 2535: 2524: 2519: 2513: 2507: 2422: 2396: 2301: 2159: 2127: 2070: 1946: 1945: 1942: 1939: 1788: 1736: 1715: 1629:Great depression 1410: 1409: 1406: 1403: 1335: 1334: 1331: 1328: 1257: 1253: 1252: 1172: 1168: 1165: 1157:reliable sources 1154: 991: 990: 987: 984: 900: 899: 896: 893: 764: 763: 760: 757: 408:Ultranationalism 364:@The Four Deuces 314: 309: 306: 276:@The Four Deuces 228: 223: 220: 215: 187:@The Four Deuces 96: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2753: 2752: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2732: 2728: 2721: 2717: 2710: 2706: 2699: 2695: 2688: 2684: 2569: 2563: 2539: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2520: 2516: 2508: 2504: 2418: 2394: 2298:The Four Deuces 2295: 2067:Charles Stewart 2012: 1981:130.238.112.129 1963: 1943: 1940: 1937: 1936: 1784: 1732: 1713: 1568: 1490: 1485: 1484: 1407: 1404: 1401: 1400: 1332: 1329: 1326: 1325: 1250: 1248: 1190: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1170: 1163: 1139: 1006: 988: 985: 982: 981: 945: 897: 894: 891: 890: 792: 761: 758: 755: 754: 750: 606: 312: 307: 304: 226: 221: 218: 209: 90: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2751: 2749: 2738: 2737: 2726: 2715: 2704: 2693: 2681: 2680: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2622: 2592: 2591: 2584: 2583: 2576: 2575: 2557: 2553: 2552: 2543: 2531: 2530: 2526: 2525: 2514: 2501: 2500: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2471:organization. 2424: 2423: 2414: 2413: 2393: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2341: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2278: 2275: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2122: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2011: 2008: 2007: 2006: 1962: 1959: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1890: 1887: 1884: 1881: 1850: 1776: 1751:98.217.161.235 1738: 1737: 1728: 1727: 1712: 1709: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1669: 1666: 1606: 1605: 1567: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1531: 1524: 1489: 1486: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1462: 1449: 1446: 1434: 1433: 1418: 1417: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1342: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1270: 1269: 1245: 1231: 1228: 1225: 1191: 1182: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1138: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1055: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1005: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 949:82.176.203.219 944: 943:Gg controversy 941: 940: 939: 908: 907: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 865: 862: 858: 855: 791: 788: 787: 786: 749: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 663: 662: 661: 657: 653: 605: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 527: 513: 509: 503: 472: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 449: 404: 403: 402: 388: 385: 382: 379: 376: 373: 370: 367: 346: 328: 325: 296: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 258: 252: 251: 250: 193: 190: 169: 166: 158: 142:We go by what 98:Courtesy link: 89: 86: 83: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2750: 2735: 2730: 2727: 2724: 2719: 2716: 2713: 2708: 2705: 2702: 2697: 2694: 2691: 2686: 2683: 2679: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2589: 2586: 2585: 2581: 2578: 2577: 2573: 2568: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2551: 2549: 2544: 2537: 2536: 2523: 2518: 2515: 2511: 2506: 2503: 2499: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2446: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2426: 2425: 2421: 2416: 2415: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2401: 2398: 2397: 2391: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2311: 2306: 2299: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2279: 2276: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2262: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2203: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2165: 2162: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2133: 2130: 2123: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2083: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2068: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2037: 2032: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1969: 1966: 1960: 1952: 1949: 1947: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1888: 1885: 1882: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1831:This page is 1830: 1829: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1791: 1787: 1782: 1777: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1747: 1743: 1740: 1739: 1735: 1730: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1716: 1710: 1708: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1698: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1670: 1667: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1607: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1572: 1571:matter here? 1565: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1546: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1529: 1525: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1487: 1482: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1450: 1447: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1435: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1419: 1416: 1413: 1411: 1397: 1396: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1378: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1348: 1343: 1341: 1338: 1336: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1295: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1276: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1246: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1229: 1226: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1200:KingSupernova 1197: 1189: 1178: 1175: 1173: 1167: 1166: 1158: 1150: 1146: 1136: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1103: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1037: 1031: 1030: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1011: 1003: 997: 994: 992: 978: 975: 974: 973: 969: 965: 961: 960: 959: 958: 954: 950: 942: 938: 934: 930: 929: 924: 923: 922: 921: 917: 913: 906: 903: 901: 886: 885: 878: 874: 870: 866: 863: 859: 856: 854: 850: 846: 842: 841: 840: 836: 832: 827: 826: 825: 821: 817: 813: 812: 811: 810: 806: 802: 797: 789: 785: 781: 777: 773: 772: 771: 770: 767: 765: 747: 735: 731: 727: 726: 720: 716: 715: 714: 710: 706: 701: 700: 699: 695: 691: 690: 684: 679: 678: 677: 673: 669: 664: 658: 654: 651: 650: 648: 644: 643: 642: 638: 634: 633: 627: 626: 625: 624: 620: 616: 611: 603: 591: 587: 583: 579: 576: 575: 574: 570: 566: 562: 561:@Slatersteven 559: 558: 557: 553: 549: 545: 544: 543: 539: 535: 531: 530:@Slatersteven 528: 526: 522: 518: 514: 510: 507: 506:@Slatersteven 504: 502: 498: 494: 489: 488: 487: 483: 479: 475: 474: 473: 462: 458: 454: 450: 447: 444: 443: 442: 438: 434: 430: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 389: 386: 383: 380: 377: 374: 371: 368: 365: 362: 361: 360: 356: 352: 347: 343: 342: 341: 337: 333: 329: 326: 323: 320: 319: 318: 315: 310: 300: 297: 289: 285: 281: 277: 274: 273: 272: 268: 264: 259: 256: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 234: 233: 232: 229: 224: 213: 208: 207: 206: 202: 198: 194: 191: 188: 185: 184: 183: 179: 175: 170: 167: 164: 159: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 140: 139: 138: 134: 130: 125: 122: 118: 115: 111: 107: 103: 102: 99: 95: 87: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2729: 2718: 2707: 2696: 2685: 2677: 2593: 2587: 2579: 2561: 2556: 2545: 2517: 2505: 2497: 2427: 2419: 2374:Slatersteven 2331:Slatersteven 2309: 2308: 2304: 2260: 2259: 2202:Larry Sanger 2066: 2035: 2034: 2013: 1978: 1975: 1970: 1967: 1964: 1918: 1894:46.97.169.87 1868:Slatersteven 1854:46.97.169.87 1766:Slatersteven 1748: 1744: 1741: 1733: 1711:Liberal bias 1696: 1695: 1692: 1652:Slatersteven 1631:, Perceived 1595:Slatersteven 1573: 1569: 1550:Slatersteven 1514:Slatersteven 1491: 1480: 1442: 1376: 1375: 1362:Slatersteven 1346: 1345: 1311:Slatersteven 1293: 1292: 1274: 1273: 1271: 1254: 1192: 1183: 1161: 1160: 1059:Slatersteven 1035: 1007: 962:What is it? 946: 927: 926: 912:Slatersteven 909: 793: 751: 724: 723: 718: 688: 687: 682: 631: 630: 607: 565:Chas newport 548:Slatersteven 534:Chas newport 517:Chas newport 478:Slatersteven 471: 453:Chas newport 392:Chas newport 332:Chas newport 280:Chas newport 240:Chas newport 212:Chas newport 197:Chas newport 163:Sara Diamond 148:Slatersteven 129:Chas newport 126: 123: 119: 116: 112: 108: 104: 97: 91: 78: 43: 37: 2630:O3000, Ret. 2628:violation. 2612:O3000, Ret. 2548:WP:TEAHOUSE 2451:O3000, Ret. 2345:O3000, Ret. 2188:Hob Gadling 2157:which one? 2109:Hob Gadling 2010:Bias review 1837:Hob Gadling 1833:not a forum 1720:O3000, Ret. 1539:Hob Gadling 1466:O3000, Ret. 1423:O3000, Ret. 1149:WP:TALK#USE 582:Hob Gadling 322:@FormalDude 236:@FormalDude 36:This is an 2678:References 2498:References 2478:propaganda 2359:tgeorgescu 2207:tgeorgescu 2173:tgeorgescu 2103:is not an 1996:tgeorgescu 1921:tgeorgescu 1164:Newslinger 1036:in between 831:Johnnytucf 801:Johnnytucf 799:left bias. 424:Xenophobia 420:Chauvinism 410:seeks the 2310:North8000 2261:North8000 2052:Washusama 2036:North8000 1786:Panamitsu 1697:North8000 1615:Aquillion 1611:perceived 1377:North8000 1347:North8000 1294:North8000 1275:North8000 928:North8000 725:North8000 717:Yeah, an 689:North8000 647:North8000 632:North8000 446:@Dimadick 101:Reform UK 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 2567:textdiff 2482:Dimadick 2225:Dimadick 2160:Tonymetz 2128:Tonymetz 2105:ideology 1528:WP:TRUTH 1107:X-Editor 1010:X-Editor 433:Dimadick 412:hegemony 2658:Apndrew 2595:Apndrew 2469:Zionist 2431:Apndrew 2221:disease 2101:science 1073:Endwise 1045:Endwise 861:ignore. 719:article 39:archive 2626:WP:ECR 2400:WP:ECR 2145:HiLo48 2072:(talk) 1790:(talk) 1674:Tytire 1637:Tytire 1535:glowie 1259:Zemant 1215:HiLo48 1121:Tytire 1088:Tytire 1015:Tytire 964:HiLo48 845:HiLo48 816:HiLo48 776:Tytire 705:Tytire 683:enable 668:Tytire 615:Tytire 313:(talk) 305:Formal 227:(talk) 219:Formal 2467:is a 2305:cause 1591:wp:rs 512:evil. 429:Other 144:wp:RS 16:< 2662:talk 2648:talk 2634:talk 2616:talk 2599:talk 2486:talk 2455:talk 2435:talk 2407:talk 2378:talk 2363:talk 2349:talk 2335:talk 2315:talk 2287:talk 2266:talk 2229:talk 2211:talk 2192:talk 2177:talk 2149:talk 2113:talk 2107:. -- 2091:talk 2056:talk 2041:talk 2020:talk 2000:talk 1985:talk 1925:talk 1898:talk 1872:talk 1858:talk 1841:talk 1823:talk 1808:talk 1770:talk 1755:talk 1724:talk 1702:talk 1678:talk 1656:talk 1641:talk 1619:talk 1613:. -- 1599:talk 1580:talk 1554:talk 1543:talk 1518:talk 1499:talk 1470:talk 1456:talk 1427:talk 1382:talk 1366:talk 1352:talk 1315:talk 1299:talk 1280:talk 1263:talk 1255:Done 1239:talk 1219:talk 1204:talk 1196:here 1171:talk 1125:talk 1111:talk 1092:talk 1077:talk 1063:talk 1049:talk 1019:talk 968:talk 953:talk 933:talk 916:talk 873:talk 849:talk 835:talk 820:talk 805:talk 780:talk 730:talk 709:talk 694:talk 672:talk 637:talk 619:talk 610:here 586:talk 569:talk 552:talk 538:talk 521:talk 497:talk 482:talk 457:talk 437:talk 396:talk 355:talk 336:talk 308:Dude 284:talk 267:talk 244:talk 222:Dude 201:talk 178:talk 152:talk 133:talk 2644:TFD 2365:) 2283:TFD 2213:) 2179:) 2087:TFD 2002:) 1927:) 1783:. — 1452:TFD 1443:NYT 1235:TFD 869:TFD 493:TFD 351:TFD 263:TFD 174:TFD 2664:) 2650:) 2636:) 2618:) 2601:) 2590::" 2570:}} 2564:{{ 2488:) 2480:. 2457:) 2437:) 2409:) 2380:) 2351:) 2337:) 2317:) 2289:) 2268:) 2231:) 2194:) 2186:-- 2164:💬 2151:) 2143:. 2132:💬 2115:) 2093:) 2058:) 2043:) 2022:) 1987:) 1900:) 1874:) 1860:) 1843:) 1825:) 1810:) 1772:) 1757:) 1726:) 1704:) 1680:) 1658:) 1643:) 1621:) 1601:) 1593:. 1582:) 1556:) 1545:) 1520:) 1501:) 1472:) 1458:) 1429:) 1384:) 1368:) 1354:) 1317:) 1301:) 1282:) 1265:) 1241:) 1221:) 1206:) 1151:, 1127:) 1113:) 1094:) 1079:) 1065:) 1051:) 1021:) 970:) 955:) 935:) 918:) 875:) 851:) 837:) 822:) 807:) 782:) 732:) 711:) 696:) 674:) 639:) 621:) 588:) 571:) 554:) 540:) 523:) 499:) 484:) 459:) 439:) 398:) 357:) 338:) 302:–– 286:) 269:) 246:) 203:) 180:) 154:) 135:) 64:← 2660:( 2646:( 2632:( 2614:( 2597:( 2572:) 2550:. 2484:( 2453:( 2433:( 2405:( 2376:( 2361:( 2347:( 2333:( 2313:( 2300:: 2296:@ 2285:( 2264:( 2227:( 2209:( 2190:( 2175:( 2147:( 2111:( 2089:( 2054:( 2039:( 2018:( 1998:( 1983:( 1944:G 1941:M 1938:G 1923:( 1896:( 1870:( 1856:( 1839:( 1821:( 1806:( 1768:( 1753:( 1722:( 1700:( 1676:( 1654:( 1639:( 1617:( 1597:( 1578:( 1552:( 1541:( 1516:( 1497:( 1468:( 1454:( 1441:( 1425:( 1408:G 1405:M 1402:G 1380:( 1364:( 1350:( 1333:G 1330:M 1327:G 1313:( 1297:( 1278:( 1261:( 1237:( 1217:( 1202:( 1123:( 1109:( 1090:( 1075:( 1061:( 1047:( 1017:( 1008:@ 989:G 986:M 983:G 966:( 951:( 931:( 914:( 898:G 895:M 892:G 871:( 847:( 833:( 818:( 803:( 778:( 762:G 759:M 756:G 728:( 707:( 692:( 670:( 645:@ 635:( 617:( 584:( 567:( 550:( 536:( 519:( 495:( 480:( 455:( 435:( 427:" 394:( 353:( 334:( 282:( 265:( 242:( 214:: 210:@ 199:( 176:( 150:( 131:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

Talk:Ideological bias on /Archive 5 - Knowledge

Index