Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia/Archive 2

Damore
Netoholic wishes to cite James Damore, the Google employee sacked for sending an anti-diversity memo at Google, as a supporting source for the section on "The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds". I think this is inappropriate. Unlike the other sources cited, Damore is not an expert in this field, but rather someone with a grievance. It also mentions the academic work and Wikipedia only in passing, and only in order to advance a novel synthesis flattering to Damore's agenda. In fact, including Damore weakens the section because any reader familiar with Damore's well known axe-grinding is likely to discount it. This is an op-ed in Quillette, which also raises red flags given the praise heaped on that website by anti-diversity activists like Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson. It's a fringe view by someone with a very obvious vested interest, it lacks academic rigour, and the source lacks the solidity of reputation of a New York Times which might perhaps offset that. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Damore is published by Quillette, a reliable source and this reference is being used to establish verification for Wisdom of the Crowds. WP:UNDUE is being used here simply as a fallback because obviously this does not violate any of our sourcing guidelines. This is not an "op-ed" as characterized - no words to that effect appear on the source, and indeed the source contradicts that by including this "Editor’s note: this piece is part of an ongoing series on the subject of diversity" making it clear this is an article and Damore is a guest writer in the series. None of Damore's opinions are used in conjunction with this reference. Even if they were (in a different article/situation), it would be entirely appropriate because the magazine is a reliable secondary source. The only red flag being raised here is a POV/political editor using spurious grounds for removing such an innocuous reference. -- Netoholic @ 08:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a totally crap source, as Guy said. Abysmal editing. Jytdog (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CRAP is an interesting essay, but it doesn't appear to be one of our sourcing guidelines. Are you saying Quillette is not a reliable secondary source for a simple verification that this study exists and confirmation of its stated conclusion? -- Netoholic @ 09:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You failed to address any part of my rationale for exclusion. Try again. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you can say that, and then people can read my reply. Your rationale is just casting aspersions about the author, which can be ignored. It is the publication which is the source, not the author, and the publication has no issues of reliability. -- Netoholic @ 12:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the publication, the author, whatever evidence there may be about the quality of the specific article, and our analysis of that information together. Ignoring that, especiallly while claiming that other editors opinions can be ignored, looks like WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the last statement made by . Just cause James Damore is controversial to some, doesn't make what he writes automatically not a reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not about his being controversial, it's about his being wrong, and about him having a very obvious dog in the fight. Opinion pieces by obvious partisans with no independent analysis are routinely, and for excellent reasons, excluded from Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose citing James Damore; an undue opinion by a non-expert. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Infogalactic
We discuss forks created by those with obvious fringe agendas who accuse Wikipedia of bias (e.g. Conservapedia). One example that has been in and out a few times is Infogalactic. This was created by alt-right troll Vox Day, who was disgruntled with our mainstream-centric version of. The source favoured is this piece in Salon, which correctly notes that the actual ideological bias lies with Vox Day. The project is (predictably) moribund and has had no attention as far as I can see since the initial launch.

Should InfoGalactic be included? Is the Salon source sufficient to establish it as due weight in an article on ideological bias on Wikipedia? Guy (Help!) 21:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Include - A few which mention Infogalactic and its creation due to "bias" on Wikipedia - Wired, Breitbart (biased/reliable), la Repubblica (la Repubblica an Italian newspaper), The Federalist (biased/reliable), The Daily Beast (biased/reliable), L'Express(L'Express French news). Obviously pertinent and tons of sources. -- Netoholic @ 22:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are not due to bias, they are due to fringe complaints of bias. "Not altogether specious" (Wired) is not much to hang your hat on.  SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not using them as proof of bias, but they are reliable to say that Infogalactic was launched due to Vox Day's claim of bias - specious or not, that's not for us to decide when evaluating the sources. -- Netoholic @ 22:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a coupe of problems with that. First, the Wired article makes it clear that Vox Day's claims of bias are bogus. Second, Wired is a popular, not a heavyweight source. Third, Vox Day is a fringe figure not known for any expertise in analysing bias, or even for his failed career as a minor sci-fi-author, but rather for neo-Nazi apologia, male supremacism and other less-than-stellar characteristics. Nothing about this story shows any evidence of ideological bias on Wikipedia. You could just about use it as a source for "complaints of ideological bias on Wikipedia er often specious". Guy (Help!) 22:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it remotely possible that you could discuss this topic WITHOUT the unsourced WP:BLP attacks? I haven't removed them in the above comment only because I don't feel like getting into that revert war... but they are incredibly inappropriate and lack decorum. -- Netoholic @  23:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * BLP dies not require us to deny the subject's own words. Breivik apologia, for example. "Vox Day, a Gamergate holdover who has assumed the position of racist alt-right figurehead". Vox Day is an edgelord, with all the shit that implies. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

U.S. News & World Report
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/06/20/wikipedia-gradually-accepted-in-college-classrooms

- I don't understand what you mean. This source is from U.S. News & World Report, not "Best Colleges". There isn't a lot of opinion to be had here, its all based on quotes. Also, can you maybe start chilling a bit on the undo button? I am very open to addressing concerns, but none of this has such urgency. Use inline tags, use clear comments, and I will work with you. I'll even research a position or point you think we need more of. But just blanking things is backtracking. -- Netoholic @ 01:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No Best Colleges is not a work of journalism. It's a self-help/guidebook with more or less arbitrary, casual and corrigible lists, sort of like the pre-season football rankings for all the teams. It is not RS for the assertions I reverted. Find a solid source for this kind of thing, if one exists.  SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges -- have a look.  SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This is from U.S. News & World Report - the news magazine - not U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking. Two separate journal articles here and here cite it - one specifically as coverage in "news media". -- Netoholic @ 01:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Very weak, find a valid source on this subject. Take it to RSN if you wish.  SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I did. I checked the archives and all mentions of U.S. News & World Report (and Best Colleges) are regarded highly as reliable sources. In this case, we have the backing if tertiary sources. I am restoring the source and content, and if you feel you can make the case, feel free yourself to bring it to RSN. -- Netoholic @  04:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

USNWR the news magazine/website is not the same as the guide series from the same publisher. Your search for the words US News and World Reports at RSN simply ignores the information I've provided above. No knowledgeable reader or researcher confuses the journalism of the magazine with the how-to self-help articles they use to pad their very imperfect and casual "best colleges" lists or the other similar publications -- Best Hospitals, Best High Schools, Best Cruise Lines, Used Cars, Veterinarians, etc. -- under that imprint. Your arguments for this source, although insistent, are facile and mistaken.  SPECIFICO talk 12:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Karl Kehm quote
This edit radically takes context away from the second sentence in the quote. In the section this appears, the topic is concern about the reliability of articles due to possible bias, and Kehm is saying essentially not to use the articles as is, but to use the citations as starting point. This hack of an edit turns a cautionary note into what sounds like a ringing endorsement. Totally misleading. -- Netoholic @ 04:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So is the article's title. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds (2017)
I have concerns about the section The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds (2017). First, it's a single paper. The only other source is an encapsulation by the Heterodox Academy. So, besides being WP:UNDUE, I see several serious flaws in their methodology, for example: I don't think this study should be included in this article.- MrX 🖋 12:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Delete It will always be possible to cherrypick non-RS citations like this to cobble together just about any narrative under the sun. Not useful.  SPECIFICO talk 12:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) "Political affiliation was identified through edit histories, under the assumption that political partisans would contribute more to articles consistent with their partisanship" #"We measure editors' alignments by the fraction of bytes they contribute to "Conservative" versus "Liberal" articles on the English-language Wikipedia, ..." - Bad assumption Shih, Teplitskiy, Duede, and Evans. By the way, they validated this by asking 500 editors about their political affiliation and they received 118 responses. Of course, anonymous Wikipedia editors are always honest about their political affiliations when asked.
 * 2) "A machine learning algorithm, developed by Wikipedia’s internal researchers, was then employed to rate the quality of each article assessed." ORES is a system designed to help automate critical wiki-work – for example, vandalism detection and removal. I'm going to make a bold assertion that nowhere in the WMF sphere of projects is there an automated tool that can accurately or consistently rate article quality, except in the very narrowest sense of the term "quality". For example, the study considers stub article to be the lowest quality article.
 * 3) "Article quality, the assessment of which was based on Wikipedia’s internal guidelines, was then related to the political diversity of the editorial team." (Yikes!)
 * 4) According to the Heterodox Academy, "Shih et al. studied the performance of 400,000 Wikipedia editorial teams." - I don't even see that number in the study, nor is it clear where they would even find 400,000 editorial teams.
 * 5) "We observed only the behavior of those editors who voluntarily cooperated with others of contrary politics to produce articles of higher quality, or those who avoided such collaborations and produced lower quality articles." - Well, isn't that convenient!
 * My only real problem with that is I would really like to see a secondary source which discusses it. Otherwise it is a primary source. As to methodology I would leave that up to the secondary source to complain about rather than editors here doing OR. Dmcq (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See the section above for discussion about one secondary source. --Netoholic @  18:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The section can be salvaged if more secondary sources can be found, and faulty methodology isn't nessicarily a reason to remove (as Dmcq mentioned, we should leave poking holes in the study to secondary sources). I'd say Keep for now with the current section tag, and come back later asking for another consensus if nobody can find any reliable sources about the study. Nanophosis (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Did anyone seek consensus to include a section based entirely on a primary source in the first place? WP:ONUS applies.- MrX 🖋 15:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOLARSHIP plus the source was originally part of it. --Netoholic @  18:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean this: "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content." or this: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." By the way, Damore doesn't make a case for the existence of ideological bias on Wikipedia, but at least it is a secondary source.- MrX 🖋 18:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the study itself is the content at hand in that section - no secondary source covers what the study encompasses. Heterodox and Damore are secondary for verification of acceptance of the study's value. As more scholarship is published citing it or other secondary sources are found, the section will evolve. ––Netoholic @ 18:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not how it's supposed to work.- MrX 🖋 19:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

So yeah. There's nothing inherently problematic about the study. It's findings seem to be pretty well in line with Greenstein's 2017 piece. The bit about semantic and lexical diversity is probably a little to esoteric for WP. The finding that polarization is related to article quality seems fine and relevant, as is the finding that this effect can be seen even in non-political articles. Also that mentions of NPOV, OR, and NOR are most frequently cited and significantly correlated with polarization could be worth mentioning. G M G talk  18:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude this per the rationale above. Obviously evaluating the quality of the source is OR, but per WP:RS we should not use primary sources if they are questionable, and this raises sufficient doubt for me. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Actually not a bad assumption, and it's not really an assumption once it's validated. They are using a different metric than Greenstein et al. Greenstein is referring to the prior linguistic slant of the article, not the topic category. Atanasov et al is referring to article subject, not content. Atanasov is just pulling directly from article categories. And 118 respondents is perfectly fine. They're only looking at two variables in their validation, and a 0.35 correlation is acceptable for what they're doing with it. Not perfect, but enough to scale up fairly reliably to several thousand articles and get meaningful results. That respondents are anonymous is neither here nor there, because for any similar survey, even one administered in person, respondents would still be anonymous. So that changes nothing methodologically. In fact, the opposite; it would be problematic methodologically if they weren't anonymous.
 * 2) The machine learning explanation is here. So yeah. It definitely exists, and seems to do a fairly decent job of estimating human article assessment. So, 62.9% chance of correctly predicting the assessment, and 90.7% chance of predicting the assessment within one level. Not surprisingly, this is least effective at rating C and B level articles, probably because we are ourselves horribly inconsistent in human ratings at these levels. So if you discount those (which IMO they should have done) the accuracy actually goes up quite a bit. But not bad really, and again, perfectly acceptable when you're scaling up to about 50k articles.
 * 3) I'm...not sure I understand what the problem with #3 is. That's...one of the core questions they're trying to answer. I don't see why it's inherently problematic, give the literature they review, we should expect that more diverse groups make higher quality articles.
 * 4) This appears to be a typo, and an apparent reference to their 49,000 article size sample. By editorial teams, they appear to be speaking about sets of editors on articles, since they're analyzed at the level of distinct-group-per-article. As in, all those of us who have edited and discussed this article are a team of editors, an editorial team.
 * 5) I dunno. The rest of the paragraph is about explaining this. But yeah. It was observational and not experimental. If this is being interpreted to mean that "we ignored anyone who didn't fit what we wanted to find" then that's not the correct interpretation of what they're saying. Fact of the matter is you really can't do an experimental design in a way that you might if there were three or four alternative equally consumed and contributed to Wikipedia-like projects.

Article nominated for DYK
Comments open here.  SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And proposing the thumb-on-scales image already removed from the article. Funny, that. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * . Delete after watching. O3000 (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Public opinion section
We have an article on Public opinion. It's not exactly an impressive article, but it says "Public opinion consists of the desires, wants, and thinking of the majority of the people; it is the collective opinion of the people of a society or state on an issue or problem." You might not agree with that definition, but certainly most of us would expect a public opinion section to have something in it about the views of the "public", eg popular perceptions. It doesn't. It has the views of two conservative authors, an anti-evolution group and a professor. , why is this called public opinion? Doug Weller talk 13:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's probably not the clearest term out there, I agree. My intent was to separate the more in-depth, dedicated analyses found in journals (usually behind nonpublic paywalls) from the more mass media commentary. I'm open to other header suggestions, I didn't see one that captured my intent at WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. --Netoholic @ 14:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Netoholic -- I've BOLDly retitled it "Other Reports of Ideological Bias". That seems awkward but a better fit for the section content.  If there is somewhere a public opinion about WP over ideological basis then feel free to make a new section and put it there.   Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * p.s. Unclear where to go though. Seems a lot of articles still to draw from -- everyone seems to say yes WP is biased or inept or etcetera, but it is not clear whether the section is going for casual RS articles or that direct complaintees exist or what.  The Zhu study is mentioned, but could this use Forbes.com comments on it ?   The Guardian mentions 'liberal bias', and co-founder Larry Sanger is reported, studies from Kellog.northwestern.edu, bbr.org, etcetera.  Then there's complainants - persons or organizations -- or partisan objectors such as heartland.org, breitbart.com that could be mentioned but need some RS which makes note and/or reviews their complaints.  And not that it's citeable, but WP gets poked at by both sides c'pedia and rationalwiki; or odd commentators writing at places like cracked.com.


 * "...everyone seems to say yes WP is biased or inept or etcetera" Everyone? That is so very wrong! HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * By "everyone", he obviously means only scotsmen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I have further renamed the section to Further claims of ideological bias. It sounds more encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no bias on Wikipedia?
Questions. Is there no bias on how Wikipedia is edited? If not, then why are there sources, some of them which fall under reliable sources, verify that there is? Has the topic received significant coverage? If it has why was there a concerted effort to delete the article? Does the subject of this article fall under the scope of an existing article, and if so which article(s)? If it does fall under the scope of existing articles, would merging and redirecting this article into an existing article, make that article violate WP:TOOBIG?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * By American standards, Wikipedia may appear left wing. By global standards it generally doesn't. Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia. A lot of American editors seem unable to see that difference. (Or they are pushing their POV?) HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Most researchers study the US EN Wikipedia, and so its judged by US political standards. Its reliably-sourced, and as long as we explain those studies in that context, its the best we can do. Help is appreciated finding other studies in other languages/regions. -- Netoholic @ 04:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as US Wikipedia. This is the English language Wikipedia. Anyone anywhere on earth who is competent in English can contribute. (And we do.) It is global. Perhaps the fact that you see it as the US Wikipedia is what's really at the core of your concerns about its alleged bias. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine fine, you caught me making a typo. Relax please. I don't "have concerns" about any bias. I am reporting on the topic as found in sources. -- Netoholic @ 05:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Typo? Nah. More likely a Freudian slip. If you have no concerns about bias, you would never have created an article with this title. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I recognized that there is a gap in our coverage. I also wrote The Return of the Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman - are you going to claim I am pushing the cyborg POV too? Its time to stop accusing me of things you are only guessing at. Help write this article, provide feedback on the article, or depart. I am not interested in your continued WP:ASPERSIONS. -- Netoholic @  05:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you call the article "The ideological balance of Wikipedia"? HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of the series: Gender bias on Wikipedia, Racial bias on Wikipedia. If you want to suggest a move of all three to "X balance on Wikipedia", you can try. I think people will tell you that's limiting. It would force the articles to be about the demographics only, not the bias that may exist as a result of the demographics. These articles are all about public perception of Wikipedia as documented in external sources, not internal counts. -- Netoholic @ 06:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Netoholic did not write an article on the balance of Wikipedia because he doesn't think Wikipedia is balanced, as his edit history clearly shows. It's up tot he rest of us to wrestle it from his WP:OWNership and keep it neutral. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Right from the start my argument has been that that won't be an easy task. Only those unhappy with it, almost exclusively conservative Americans, write about it. People who don't don't perceive a bias in something don't even think about there being anything worth writing about. This just another place for American conservatives to air their complaints about the world. HiLo48 (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So it is written about, and thus verifiable that there is at least the perception that there is bias on Wikipedia, if not actual bias.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is also a perception that Wikipedia is very balanced, but nobody bothers writing about that. It's only whiners who loudly protest. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Then per WP:BALANCE that should be included (if that can be verified by reliable sources), but what can be verified of the perception of bias, or actual bias, shouldn't be excluded because of other perception that it is "very balanced". Neither side should be excluded, nor should either POV be attacked, that is not what Wikipedia is about IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Then per WP:BALANCE that should be included (if that can be verified by reliable sources)..." Did you actually read what I wrote? My point is that those who don't perceive a problem don't write about the problem they don't see. The inherent nature of this issue is that, while the vast majority of people are happy with Wikipedia's balance, the tiny minority who aren't make a big fuss about their dissatisfaction. Those who a happy don't make such a fuss. "Reliable" sources about the balance are rare, because nobody can be bothered. That is the core problem with this article. It's an article for whiners to complain. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is very clear about inclusion of material: "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Translation: if enough whiners get their whining published in RS then we can include it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.– Lionel(talk) 06:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But those for whom the idea that Wikipedia is biased doesn't even cross their minds don't bother writing about the matter. Can you see the problem of achieving balance in that environment? This whole article is simply a platform for conservatives to attack Wikipedia. Not a good look. HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Conservapedia
Conservapedia is probably the most widely discussed example of criticism of Wikipedia's "liberal bias". In my view that criticism is good evidence to the contrary. I added a short para in public opinion because it seems to me to be a very useful illustration of the motives of the more vociferous critics, and it explains the difference between the perceived bias among American conservatives and the objective finding that bias is limited.


 * Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly complained that "Wikipedia articles often use British spelling instead of American English" and "facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored". Conservapedia makes extravagant claims of bias on Wikipedia, many of which are contradicted by its own articles. Conservapedia has been criticised for its authoritarian nature and fundamentalist denial of evolution.

Netoholic promptly tag-bombed this paragraph. Let us wordsmith it. Incidentally, New Scientist's website seems broken - the link worked yesterday. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC) (note - fixed dead New Scientist link and removed tag Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC))
 * I don't understand removing the tags claiming "WP:POINT" - the concerns are valid. You should just remove them as you address the concerns, like that dead link I flagged. Your sense of urgency is really impeding collaboration... maybe wait a bit and let someone else take a look at the tags and suggest changes? -- Netoholic @ 07:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In your mind. The relevance of Conservapedia's bias when discussing their accusations of bias seems obvious to me. But, you know, feel free to suggest better wording. Also: you are in a minority of one pretty much all the time with this article, so accusing everybody else of failing to collaborate is just MPOV. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just you. I tagged problem text to gain input. I have suggested other wording for Conservapedia coverage (in prior sections you've blanked) but I never claim I have the "best" or "right" version of anything. I have tried a lot of things to get you to fairly collaborate. In particular, I've asked you to stop blanking sections and instead use inline tags. And now I've asked you to respect the tags I use and leave them in longer so we can get input. Maybe you missed the "You believe it is necessary for you to repeatedly revert the article" line at MPOV?  I am impressed you made this talk page section, but it still could be handled better on your part. And probably mine too. -- Netoholic @  08:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just me and virtually everybody above. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don’t understand why we would include any mention of Conservapedia. Forget the fact that it’s often hilariously goofy and assume it was actually a good faith attempt at presenting a conservative POV. It would still be a wiki, and wikis, including Wikipedia, are not RS. Unless they are totally controlled by a tiny group, they aren’t even RS for presenting their own opinions since they are crowd-edited. Having said that, if it is to be included, I entirely agree with JzG’s position. O3000 (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth including a paragraph about Conservapedia and the content as written is a good start. It was created specifically as a response to perceived liberal bias on Wikipedia. There's no benefit to tagging it when there is an active "editing team" right here to address any issues.- MrX 🖋 13:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Conservapedia not being RS doesn’t matter here, because the opinions reported in the paragraph above are sourced to reliable secondary sources, not Conservapedia. Brunton (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're not citing Conservapedia, we are highlighting Conservapedia as a prominent response to the claimed bias of Wikipedia, and the thinking of those who make such claims. I'm guessing that most people are probably happy that we are biased in favour of empirically verified fact, but there are those who aren't and they are a leading source of complaints about our "bias". Guy (Help!) 20:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand all these good points. I just think it may appear to readers that we’re looking for a reason to document the absurdity of the site in more than one article due to their criticism of WP. We generally focus on fringe sites in articles about them instead of letting the fringe views spread to other articles. But, I accept the consensus. O3000 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As no changes have so far come from this discussion, I've placed the tags back to bring attention. There are WP:V and WP:NPOV concerns that need to be addressed, and putting the tags is better than removing the section for now. -- Netoholic @ 04:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. Evidence here suggests yo are the only one who disputes these things. Feel free to raise specific concerns here and suggest better wording, but tag-bombing is disruptive. Guy (Help!) 07:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * +1. Exactly my impression. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The current version includes the word "American" at the beginning and end of the same sentence. I believe the one in the quote is enough to explain context to the reader, so the using both is redundant and represents poor writing style. Recommend dropping the opening "American" and leave the quote as is. -- Netoholic @ 04:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you must, but have you realised yet how significant it is that you and all the other whiners are among the less than 5% of the world's population that are American? This is NOT a global problem for Wikipedia. It is a problem for conservative, US-centric editors. This is obvious to non-American editors, and to many Americans, I wish there was a decent way to get that simple fact into the article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * First, I have never stated here what country I am from, nor my political leanings, so keep your assumptions to yourself. For someone concerned with global problems, you sure are quick to assign nationalistic labels. Second, there is a way to get your view into the article: find a reliable source which agrees with you. I have yet to see a study that confirms any sort of systemic conservative bias on Wikipedia - if I had, it'd be in here. And if you find anything about a US-centric bias, then maybe you can add it to Criticism of Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 04:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read my comment again. I am assigning a label to a subset of people from one nation, not all of them, and will not apologise for that. You have clearly ignored or failed to comprehend my earlier comments about sourcing for my position. It's only the whiners who tend to bother to write about Wikipedia alleged bias. Those who don't perceive a bias do not think of there being a problem, so they tend not to write about that, to them, non-existent problem. Do you understand that point? HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are 12,400 results on Google Scholar with "Wikipedia" in the title alone. You may say its only "whiners" that write about bias... and I'll counter that by saying academics study Wikipedia not because they are "whiners" but because they are simply curious. The studies in this article were designed to investigate -if- bias exists... not because professors just want to "whine" about it. Maybe the reason you have to repeat yourself or claim no one is listening is because you are simply characterizing this topic incorrectly. -- Netoholic @  05:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Convince me that an academic, particularly a non-American one, who has never perceived bias in Wikipedia, would even bother studying it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. When you add bias to the Google Scholar search it goes down from 12,400 results to 35, and you find that pretty much every study ever written on the supposed ideological bias of Wikipedia is already in the article. It's almost as if Wikipedia is not, in fact, ideologically biased. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Article Name
Article names are supposed to be descriptive and neutral. This title sounds more like a slogan. Suggest we change it to "Neutrality in Wikipedia." TFD (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Only if we do the same for gender bias on Wikipedia and racial bias on Wikipedia. --Netoholic @ 19:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, but not necessary per the arguments at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying ‘neutrality in’ or ‘bias in’ are equally a position, but WP:PRECISION and closer to WP:COMMONNAME seems to favor the ‘Ideological bias’ use.  Saying ‘neutrality (ideological)’ is just odd. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It lets the article address the issue of whether or not Wikipedia is neutral, rather than proclaiming in the title that it is not. Do informed people say that Wikipedia is biased because it favors consensus opinion on climate change, the place of Obama's birth and whether or not the moon landing was faked? Or do we say that the neutrality policy dictates that. TFD (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm right with you on this TFC. The current name is clearly one that appealed to the article's creator, someone who believes Wikipedia is biased, and he has picked up a few followers along the way, all agreeing with that non-neutral POV. The name attracts such people, not a healthy situation. I see the name itself as an insult to the vast majority of editors who work in a good faith, balanced way. I would support an RfC to change the name, but would expect a giant manure fight. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Its not that I believe Wikipedia has such bias - my belief means nothing. Reliable external, peer-reviewed studies demonstrate an ideological bias on Wikipedia within the scope of their studies, just as do studies reveal a gender bias on Wikipedia within the scope of those studies. The article racial bias on Wikipedia doesn't seem to have the same level of evidence. Its sources are mostly mainstream news articles, not academic. If the name of that article is fine, in that the title is not seen as implying a bias even though there is no robust evidence, then I don't see what the problem if this one is considering we do have such evidence. Even if there was evidence of no bias, the title would still be accurate. I think you are reading too much into it. Its "on Wikipedia" not "of Wikipedia" - so it doesn't make a statement about Wikipedia as a whole, but rightly covers evidence of certain bias in some places on Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 03:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You know what I think about the inevitable bias in the sources. Only whiners will write about this topic. Convince me the title is not insulting to most Wikipedia editors. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are active editors of Wikipedia, I wouldn't know how to approach polling them all. -- Netoholic @  04:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If that's the best the creator of the article can come up with, it doesn't have much going for it. This is not meant as an insult to that person. It's meant to highlight how indefensible the title of this article is. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a logical question, not a counting chore. The title is rancid.  SPECIFICO</b> talk 08:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Could editors here just stop taking the title personally thanks. Just because it says 'Wikipedia' in the title does not mean it has to be treated any different from anything else. Trying to deal with it any different is against WP:5P and thus against the basis of Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? It's obvious this title blatantly breaches WP:5P2, and also goes well over WP:5P4 by telling most editors that they are biased in their contributions. And your Edit summary is ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Think of it as 'ideological bias in Edubook' or some other made up name like that and you'll see what you say has no basis in fact. You are trying to be some warrior defending the good name of Wikipedia. That is not needed and is counterproductive. Dmcq (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should phrase it stronger. I don't want or need your protection. Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is not needed and is counterproductive. Stop telling me how to behave. Discuss what I have written. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What I see you writing is you saying the person who started the article is engaged in attacking Wikipedia and asserting that writing it is wrong because the people who would write such stuff are biased. That is what I wrote about. Wikipedia does not need your protection. Productive in Wikipedia is writing good articles on notable topics. It scraped past a deletion debate. Can we go past the deletion debate till the next deletion discussion I'm sure you'll be glad to start after some decent time has been given for it to develop thanks. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What you see is really not the point. The only way to promote your view is to respond directly to the policy-based objections that have been presented repeatedly and in detail on this page. You may prevail, you may not, but unresponsive complaints are pointless. Please review the question that has been posed. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was asked to respond to what was written. And as to you I really do not appreciate you assuming I'm trying to push some point of view or that doing so is a correct thing to do. I think the straightforward answer to the original query is that it is based on the commonname and other similar titles in Wikipediia, if you can find a better title then propose it instead. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The article title makes no more sense to me than moving the Pizzagate article to “Pedophilia at the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria”. The title, as it stands, is biased itself. What’s wrong with a neutral title? O3000 (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose one or give some ideas from which a name might come then. What would a person look for? How have people referred to the topic? What kind of decision have editors on Wikipedia come to in similar circumstances? That is the basis of WP:TITLE. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As TFD suggested: "Neutrality in Wikipedia". O3000 (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately neutrality has got its own rather special meaning on Wikipedia, I suppose we could live with that except it's not what the sources say either. See Criticism of Wikipedia where this comes under partisanship rather than neutrality, but the sources don't say partisan either, they say political and bias and ideology. Have a look at the references in the article for yourself Dmcq (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Partisanship, political, and ideological all work. "Neutrality" would be nearly deletion through subject change. It would almost completely change the scope of the article. That might work in a way that's logically consistent if this, the gender and race articles were merged into one, but I doubt if there would be a strong consensus for that.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just thinking a bit more on this and I agree, neutrality is just too wide, it would encroach on too many sections of Criticism of Wikipedia rather than just one topic under it. Dmcq (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A merge would be fine with me. But, seems it’s getting more and more difficult to gain consensus for such. O3000 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with a grand merge into one massive article. This and race are both pretty anemic (not in small part because the WMF have chosen not to collect data on either, and because there are entirely more people here trying to argue, delete, remove and repurpose than there are people trying to develop). The problem is the gender article (the only thing the WMF seems to actually care about discussing), which is developed enough that if not artfully cropped, begs us to ask why we don't summarize and retain the fork, which if we do, means that the other two will probably eventually be forked too once more developed, which means we're really just kicking the can down the road and haven't actually solved anything with all the work it would take to do the merge. But I expect that attempting to crop down the gender article is mostly just going to piss off a lot of people who are married to the issue, and the only way to make everybody happy would be to retain the fork. So there we are.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  16:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48 since “neutrality” seems also a prejudiced title, and a different topic, I suggest the phrase scholarly sources, reviewers, and complaints all speak of possible “bias”, not possible “neutrality”. Google it yourself and see. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Amazing that some continue to not believe that the subject of this article doesn't meet WP:GNG, and continue to attempt to thwart its existence. This is not about accepting and agreeing with the topic, but acknowledging that it has received significant coverage and writing about it in an encyclopedic style and ensuring the end result is neutral and balanced by including all POVs regarding the subject.
 * This is not an attack on Wikipedia. Sometimes the best way to improve things is to first understand flaws which things claim to have. Wikipedia is a community of people, people are fallible, therefore it will never be perfect.
 * As for a comment above about biased sources, please see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. We shouldn't be attempting to advance the bias of sources, but utilize them to document in a neutral way what is stated in them. Otherwise, since most news sources lean to the left on the American political spectrum, if we were to advance those biases, everything that uses those sources would also take on a left leaning bias, and thus not be neutral, thus advancing the sometimes stated claim "Reality has a well-known liberal bias"-S. Colbert.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with an attack on Wikipedia. It has to do with a title that suggests a conclusion.. And, frankly, most news sources lean to the left…. suggests you are letting your bias affect your reasoning. What's wrong with a neutral title? O3000 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If the entire contents of this article were "There is no bias found on Wikipedia" followed by fifty citations, the current title would still be neutral and correct. --Netoholic @ 21:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just like Distribution and density of green cheese on the moon. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy says that views must be presented proportionately according to their coverage in reliable sources. Of course that would means that if reliable sources have a predominately liberal capitalist pro-science outlook (what RCLC calls left-wing), then Wikipedia will provide more coverage to those views. Wikipedia calls that policy neutrality. RightCowLeftCoast, what do you mean by neutrality? An equal balance between evolution and creationism? TFD (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for stating things I did not say, and making the claim that is what I meant. Nice straw man. I ask that editors stop attack other editors, and stick to discussing civilly content.
 * Also advancing the bias of sources is not neutral. I am sure no one would want that done for sources which have a bias right of center, thus no one should want that done for sources which have a bias left of center. Understandably each nation has a different center, as others have pointed out earlier.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * RightCowLeftCoast, Wikipedia policy does not say that articles should emphasize any particular country, so that is as you say a straw man argument. But your reply is evasive. What do you mean by neutrality? Does it mean that articles should provide equal weight with what you believe and what reliable sources say? The problem with that approach is that world views are not binary, but there is a wide range of opinions and the political spectrum is broader than Hilary Clinton and Steve Bannon. TFD (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Wikipedia policies. I refuse to use them to pseudo-win an ideological argument. What I will again do here is present the simple and obvious fact that only people who think Wikipedia is biased will write about the subject. Those who neither notice not think about bias in Wikipedia as they read articles will not be motivated to write about it. Given that reality, what is to be gained by building an article around sources from the tiny minority of people from the right who don't like Wikipedia's inevitable centrist position? HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * only people who think Wikipedia is biased will write about the subject  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  00:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's called logic. Note my comment that I am not appealing to Wikipedia's arcane policies here.My aim is to build a quality encyclopaedia. Having articles that are nothing more than platforms for the thoughts of right wing whiners does not help. (The same would apply to left wing whiners.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You know, it's really not that arcane. 90% of it is "don't be a jerk" and "defer to the sources".  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  01:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not implying that anyone contributing here is being a jerk. That would definitely breach Wikipedia policy. And perhaps you missed my comment about the sources potentially available for this article. They cannot be balanced, because their goal will inevitably be to prove that there IS an Ideological bias on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t think GMG was saying that. I still occasionally use the term arcane about the guidelines when welcoming new editors. But, I agree that once you understand the main principles, the guidelines all fall into place and GMG’s reduction to two general concepts is not as simplistic as it sounds. OTOH, I think your opinion that only people who think Wikipedia is biased will write about the subject is of worthy mention. Just my opinion. O3000 (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the pertinent bit there was the "defer to the sources" part. Your personal opinion on the existential nature of the sources is noted, but irrelevant.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  03:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But it's a biased article name, one which is only supported by biased sources. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I get that your opinion is that it is a biased title and there are no unbiased sources. The article has passed AfD for the moment, think of a better title that is in conformity with WP:TITLE if you are worried about that, otherwise what you are doing comes under what you call whining. As to the sources being biased, Wikipedia seems to cope with that sort of problem quite well elsewhere without deleting articles. And anyway as far as I can see there are good secondary sources that discuss the primary sources in a straightforward fashion. For instance the very first citation Welcome to the Wikipedia of the alt-right, what on earth is your problem with it? Dmcq (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is simply not encyclopaedic. It's about people's opinions. It's about complaining. How does that belong in a quality encyclopaedia? HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm...now that you mention it, it does seem amiss that we don't have an article on Complaining in the every day sense. I suppose I'll get to writing that when I get to a good stopping place.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On a quick search there seems to be a decent amount of studies of it. That could make a good article. Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)I think that could make a good article.

Use of the word "liberal" in the article
The word "liberal" means many different things in different places around the world. For example, the main conservative party in Australia is the Liberal Party. Those arguing that there is a problem with Wikipedia's bias, and also demanding that those objecting to the article should be helping to globalise it, tend to use "liberal" to describe political positions they don't like, including the alleged bias of Wikipedia. We therefore have the ridiculous situation of those wanting it globalised using a very American word. (As a pejorative too, of course.) Until a better, non-ambiguous word is used by the whiners to describe the bias they allege exists, we really cannot get very far. PS: I don't have any suggestions. (But "liberal" doesn't work.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s a potential issue with this article: it’s discussing complaints from the American right that Wikipedia has a bias towards a position that in most of the English-speaking world is regarded as centrist, or even centre-right, and people from positions outside the mainstream (e.g. creationism) complaining that Wikipedia has a bias towards the mainstream position. This is a feature of Wikipedia, not a bug, and if these complaints are reported here then, per WP:FRINGE, it needs to be made clear that they are from outside the mainstream. Brunton (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We have academic studies which demonstrate a political bias, especially the earliest years of Wikipedia, so at least some of the criticism has proven merit. If there is a view that might be considered "FRINGE", it'd be those that claim bias doesn't or didn't exist. I think we need to tread carefully and just present claims and reactions to claims. A sizable percentage of the world's population is religious, especially Abrahamic religions which believe in a creation, so to them atheism is the "fringe". Last paragraph of WP:EVALFRINGE gives some guidance not to describe them as outside the mainstream, but as religious/political movements. I think the Conservapedia item as of right now does it well, as the reactions are sourced to scientists, not described in terms of mainstream or not. --Netoholic @ 21:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah. You're still pushing the conservative American view, and don't even realise it. I wish we could get you to leave America and see the world as others see it. Other places may pay lip service to religions that have creation stories, but they don't build arks that will never float to prove one once did. Creationism is an American thing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Fringe" is not the same as "minority". WP:FRINGE says "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". That means, not everybody has a "vote", just the experts on the subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Well Liberal does have WEIGHT in RS but feel free to propose something else or additional. Perhaps say "American Liberal" for the ideological bias group ?  Or perhaps list multiple ideological biases it has been identified with  ?    There does seem to be a perhaps general American biases for Dualism, Moralising, and Absolutism  -- that matters are usually viewed as two-sided and must be absolutely good or absolutely evil.    I think there have been mentions of Scientism or Atheism as well.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course "liberal" is common in the sources, because they are an appallingly biased collection of sources. Almost all (maybe all?) from American conservatives, the only people who can be bothered writing about this. That simply proves my point. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mark. Also "left-wing" would be descriptive and neutral.– Lionel(talk) 06:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hardly. The way I see both terms used by American conservatives, they are almost always intended as insults. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * User:HiLo48 Inevitably.  Just as American liberals (or British Labour) use “Conservative” and “Right-wing” as negatives.  Any value system uses its values as labels for ‘good’, and other values are ‘bad’.  But these are also neutral and COMMONNAME labels, used by all sides, and NPOV guidance to present all significant POVs in due WEIGHT would say use them even when they are not neutral.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's possible to use both in a neutral way, but from afar, I rarely see the word "liberal" used as anything but a pejorative in the US. And the problem with using it as a pejorative is that there is nothing inherent about the word that should have led to that. "Conservative" should be just a neutral word. It's easy to use it that way. "Liberal", literally and historically meaning generous or open minded, has actually been given a new meaning by the millions of Americans who use it as a pejorative. It's Newspeak, which is ironic coming from those who tend to not like change. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The term left-wing is even worse. American liberals are in fact liberals as the term is normally understood, but not left-wing. TFD (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm uncomfortable with the expression "normally understood". Normally understood where? HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Standard textbooks everywhere and general usage everywhere except the U.S. TFD (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Editorial Bias in Crowd-Sourced Political Information

 * A 2015 study by Joshua L. Kalla and colleagues examined contributions to the Wikipedia articles on the then 100 sitting U.S. senators as well as 151 articles on deceased or retired senators. They concluded there was a "clear, systematic bias" in favor of the inclusion of positive facts and the removal of negative facts, but that this was not moderated by the political party of the senator. They also found that this bias was primarily related to whether a politician was currently active, and found no difference among retired living, and retired deceased individuals, indicating the effect is not explained by Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons.

I found a secondary source for study (which I didn't find when I was first considering this same study for the article). After reading The Boston Globe coverage and re-reading the study, I don't see a strong case for inclusion here. It seems quite apt for (and is already mentioned in) Reliability of Wikipedia since its about what facts are retained in articles from a positive/negative perspective, but doesn't fit as strong in the core focus of this article - ideological bias. I'd suggest moving the section over to there. -- Netoholic @ 09:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant bit for us is that across 251 articles on current and former US senators, political affiliation was not found to be a significant mediating factor in the treatment of either positive or negative information, regardless of whether the information was cited. Their entire design is aimed at detecting political bias. They just didn't find any, at least not at the level that is detectable by their design.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a paper written three years ago by a person who is still a student. It has four citations including blog.wikimedia. Doesn’t seem like a very good source. O3000 (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's a peer reviewed paper by a doctoral student at UC Berkeley and a professor at Yale, along with a professor at Warwick, published by the Public Library of Science, but other than that yeah I guess.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  16:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Linking this to ideological bias looks to me to be WP:SYN. In as much as it mentions ideological bias, it does so purely in passing, to state that the observed effect is not linked to ideology. All sitting politicians' biographies have a higher bar to inclusion of negative rather than positive information, and this ceases after retirement. That's an interesting nugget - we should be policing WP:BLP just as firmly among the retired. What we can actually see from this study is that Wikipedians scrutinise political biographies more closely and apply more robust standards when there is a risk of skewing an election result. Regardless of party. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I will say that I disagree with your stated removal reason - "So the study found... no ideological bias. Wait, what?". Even a study which finds no bias would be on-topic for this article. My main question above was about where the section might best be presented. Even if moved to Reliability, it might be worth leaving one-line pointer from here. -- Netoholic @ 09:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A study that finds no bias, just as a study that finds slight bias, strong bias, mixed nuanced bias, or...even one that reached no conclusion at all and simply recommended further research, would still a finding relevant to the topic of bias.
 * Other than that, something something...only partially sarcastic comment about accusing people of ownership in the edit summary of your fourth revert.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)