User:Apaugasma/No. We are not biased.

The rumor ...
According to a widespread rumor among experienced Wikipedia editors, we at Wikipedia are biased. But what does it mean to be biased? It means being disproportionately in favor of or against something, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. We are not that. Let us dispel this rumor, step by step.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
We are an encyclopedia. This entails a number of things, one of which is that we do not produce new knowledge, but faithfully report existing knowledge. Another is that we report this knowledge in an impartial tone, and that we present it in a summary style. Most importantly perhaps, being an encyclopedia means that we focus on mainstream knowledge: only the most widely accepted types of knowledge, as produced by academic scholars or by high-quality media resources, are considered prominent enough to be included.

This also excludes a lot: theories and ideas advanced by religious scholars, popular authors, or trendy bloggers may be supported by a significant amount of people, but they are not widely enough accepted to be considered encyclopedic. Even if widely believed, as for example some fringe theories may be, they are not accepted by the type of sources that we consider reliable. Only the most authoritative sources will do: those which have the very best reputation for fact-checking, or those which are recognized by scholars of the highest rank as contributing to the edifice of human knowledge. Where mainstream sources like that report different points of view, we represent them in proportion to their prominence.

All of this is simply what it means to be an encyclopedia. It is part of its definition. Being what one is supposed to be is not being biased. If it would be, almost anything could be called biased: a novel would be 'biased' because it contains a story rather than facts, a text book would be 'biased' because it contains facts rather than a story. The word would lose all meaning.

The misconception
There appears to be some misunderstanding that, because we exclusively follow mainstream sources, we would somehow be biased towards the ideas defended in these mainstream sources, and against ideas defended in lesser, non-mainstream sources. The claim is, for example, that:


 * we are biased towards science, and biased against pseudoscience.
 * we are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
 * we are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
 * we are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
 * we are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.
 * we are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.
 * we are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
 * we are biased towards evolution and an old Earth, and biased against young Earth creationism.
 * we are biased towards an (approximately) spherical earth, and biased against a flat earth.

And so on, and so forth. The idea seems to be that because mainstream sources appear to be 'biased' towards and against some things, and because we merely follow mainstream sources, necessarily we are biased too. However, this idea is mistaken on several levels.

Wikipedia is neutral, not biased
Even if we were to grant that mainstream sources were biased, would that render us biased? Are we, as Wikipedia, disproportionately in favor or against some subject, in such a way as to be closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair towards it? Certainly not! As explained above, we do not take a position of our own, but merely follow what mainstream sources say, neutrally representing them in proportion to their weight. If we were biased, we would come down in favor or against some subject, regardless of what mainstream sources say. We would do so because we would be prejudiced about it, or unwilling to treat it fairly. Conservapedia is biased. RationalWiki is biased. Wikipedia is not.

Wikipedia's sources are disinterested, not biased
But even if we ourselves are not biased, if mainstream sources would be biased, it would perhaps be fair to say that we would inherit that bias. However, most mainstream sources are not biased towards or against anything. The reason why they are trustworthy in the first place is because they are widely believed to approach their subjects from a disinterested point of view. As a general rule, they don't particularly care about whether what they are writing about comes out one way or the other. In most cases, they are not prejudiced about it. They are commonly expected not to treat their evidence unfairly.

If we may for a moment sketch a somewhat ideal image –to which scientists as a group nevertheless try to adhere– we can say that good scientists follow the science where it leads them. Like us Wikipedians, they apply a certain methodology in which following what the sources say is essential. The main difference, roughly, is that whereas we follow published secondary sources, they follow the raw empirical evidence, and devise new theories to explain this primary evidence –thus creating new knowledge. They may arrive at the conclusion that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa, but they were not biased from the outset to arrive at this conclusion. They have no prejudice against homeopathy: they merely observe that it doesn't work. They do not engage with pseudoscience, not because they are close-minded about it, but because there is no place for it in their methodology.

Likewise, historians try to understand historical sources in their own context, and are all about avoiding presentist bias. They take alchemy as seriously as they do chemistry, astrology as seriously as astronomy, and have in fact found these historical disciplines to be intricately related. Even esotericism is now being intensively studied in the burgeoning new field of Western esotericism studies, which offers a rich –if still underused– resource for an encyclopedic treatment of the subject.

In short
While mainstream sources may tend to come to certain conclusions about some theories and ideas being true and others being false, this does not mean that they are biased towards or against any of these theories and ideas. Dispassionately demonstrating that something is true is not the same as being in favor of that thing, let alone as being disproportionately, unfairly or prejudicially in favor of that thing. Repeatedly stating what one has objectively found to be true is not the same as being biased. Likewise, reporting what scholars and scientists have objectively found to be true, and only reporting this, is not the same as being biased. It is being an encyclopedia.

... and its effects
Like all rumors that are based on a misconception, the idea that it is okay to positively affirm that Wikipedia is biased has a number of adverse effects.

Short-circuits policy-based arguments
It does not seem likely that those who argue that Wikipedia is biased as outlined above really believe that we are disproportionately in favor of or against some things in ways that are closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Rather, saying that we're biased seems to be meant as a quip used in answering those editors who claim that Wikipedia is biased because it does not include something which they believe to be significant, but is not actually supported by mainstream sources. When confronted with such a claim, the right thing to do™ would be to explain why policy prohibits including this point of view. However, it's much easier to just say something like:

"Yes, we are biased. We are biased towards academic sources, and as a matter of fact, academic sources are biased too. It's just no use complaining about this."

While this answer may often be correct in spirit, it fails to ground its argument in actual policy. Because it does not inform the user about the real policy-based reason why their preferred point of view cannot be included, the user does not get the chance to learn why their proposal was inappropriate, or how to formulate a proposal that does comply with policy. It merely chases away the user with what is essentially a lie.

Reinforces editorial bias, obstructing a neutral point of view
But what if the user who is being told 'yes, we are biased' was actually pointing out a real and detrimental form of bias in an article? What if they were responding to an error made by another editor who in fact is biased, and failed to report the actual mainstream view because of that bias? At this point, the quip becomes a weapon in the hands of biased editors to justify their own tendentious editing. Wikipedia will contain inaccurate, misleading, or skewed information because that information seems to be in line with Wikipedia's purported bias.

Some Wikipedians may be strongly opposed to some of the things listed above as what Wikipedia is supposedly biased against (pseudoscience, astrology, alchemy, etc.). The mistaken idea that it's not just them being opposed to it, but Wikipedia being opposed to it –indeed, reliable sources being opposed to it– reinforces their false sense of righteousness. While the fact that they are opposed to something on a personal level should make them extra cautious when editing on that topic, the idea that Wikipedia and reliable sources are 'on their side' has exactly the opposite effect. People who are opposed to something tend to paint a rather negative picture of it, and are often not eager to learn more about it, for example by reading up on it. The idea that Wikipedia is also opposed to that thing is then easily taken as a justification to make Wikipedia depict the subject in an unduly negative way, without any regard for how mainstream sources treat the subject.

Positively affirming that Wikipedia is biased works like a self-fulfilling prophecy: it ends up making Wikipedia more biased. It normalizes actual bias. Which is something no one really wants.