Template:Did you know nominations/Ideological bias on Wikipedia


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Netoholic @ 03:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Ideological bias on Wikipedia

 * ... that a study found that polarized, but numerically-balanced, teams of editors reduce ideological bias on Wikipedia and improve article quality, compared to one-sided teams?  Source:
 * ALT1:... that a study found that polarized, but numerically-balanced, teams of editors working on an article reduce ideological bias on Wikipedia and improve quality, compared to one-sided teams?
 * Comment: Would these work better if we drop the initial "that"? -- Netoholic @ 11:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would these work better if we drop the initial "that"? -- Netoholic @ 11:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Created by Netoholic (talk). Self-nominated at 11:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Article has been nominated for deletion.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg AfD closed, and article retained. -- Netoholic @ 10:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a misleading comment. The result of the AfD was "No consensus". The closing Admin stated there were valid arguments on each side. There had been a very large number of Delete comments. So it was retained by default, because that Admin would not make a definitive statement, not because it was a great, important article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * a great, important article...Is that part of the deletion criteria?  G M G  talk  00:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Article is new enough and long enough. Earwig's copyvio detector found copyright violation unlikely, and the reliable sources are cited with inline citations. Hook is interesting.
 * Two issues: 1) There is a neutrality tag on the page. It looks like you put it there about the inclusion of Conservapedia? So that needs to be resolved. I do have a question about this sentence: "By US standards, the English Wikipedia community is generally accepted to have a slight liberal and countercultural bias." The countercultural bias was mentioned by a professor, but none of the studies mentioned in the article looked at countercultural bias. I don't think one professor's opinion is the same as general acceptance. If other sources mention it, that's worth noting on the page.
 * 2) I looked up the two sources for the hook, and they don't specifically mention ideological bias--just article quality. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I object to the use of the image of the scales with the thumb pressing down on one side. It has already been removed from the article as inappropriately supporting the article's creator's POV that Wikipedia is biased. It equally doesn't belong here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree that the image is kitschy. Suggest for the hook:
 * ...that ideological bias on Wikipedia has been found to be equivalent to that of Encyclopædia Britannica when an article has been thoroughly edited? Source: Consistent with H2, the biases of the two sources converge when articles have been heavily revised, even when they come from vintages with large biases p. 14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenMeansGo (talk • contribs) 22:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg - problematic and unstable article, substantial unresolved questions of bias and what should be included or excluded, and a long history of disputed content. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's two weeks old, so it doesn't have a long history of anything. The only ongoing dispute is an RfC mostly over issues that have already been resolved through normal editing. Everything else seems to be chugging along nicely, despite what was probably a premature RfC opened on the same day as an AfD, and opened after little to no substantive discussion of the issues considered.  G M G  talk  00:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's still a toss-up the thing wouldn't be deleted before it comes time to publish DYK. The article is still a mess, it's just that new mess goes up every time some of the current mess is removed.  SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg The nominator has been blocked. I'm not 100% sure what to do in this situation, but it doesn't seem like the nominator will be able to address the issues I and others have brought up. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)