User:Jorgenev/research/Wikipedia subreddit user survey/full list of bias answers

The (optional) question was

Do you think Wikipedia has any biases (political, etc.)? If so please list them.

Of the 2225 submissions processed 792 had this section filled out.

Answers
Like much of the internet, and especially the more nerdy parts of the internet (reddit..), It's biased towards liberal, open-minded, intellectual or pseudo-intellectual types.

Unsure.

Pop culture bias (look up the "wikigroan"), liberal bias, geographical bias (U.S. perspective is heavily favored in most articles)

Nope

There is certainly an academic bias to Wikipedia, but that is to be expected. I would imagine a liberal bias would go along with this, but in general I find that editors strive for neutrality.

probably liberal, but I haven't seen it.

Politically liberal, although generally tries (with varying degrees of success) to self-police. The Physics articles (which are the only ones I'm actually qualified to comment on) tend towards rigorous mathematical descriptions rather than conceptual ones. Anything beyond the level of Special Relativity or very basic Quantum Mechanics is effectively unreadable without a good understanding of higher level math.

There are problably more left-leaning editors on Wikipedia than right wing.

Yes, it is biased to an extreme liberal perspective and is also HEAVILY pro-pedophilia.

Glue

no

None noticeable. I rarely look at controversial or "in the news" articles.

liberal bias

Consistent with the internet population, largely socially libertarian and fiscally interventionalist

I'm sure there are, but I don't know of any off hand

origin country of article writer = bias

Liberal Leaning slightly

I would say it varies by article more than anything else.

Moderate-Left

Articles that are very new are generally biased to the author. The longer an article is up, the more reliable.

I dislike Wikipedia for political and religious articles. I think a purely intellectual approach to these fields is irresponsible, as it does not allow the opportunity to provide insights and makes the reader jump to conclusions.

No

nah

Their main bias would really only be providing way too much background before providing what is interesting/currently relevant about the person. For example, let's say Donald Trump was accused of stealing the world's only living Velociraptor; his wikipedia page would make no mention of this until at least 16 paragraphs in.

Left wing, which is good.

Liberal

Not really.

Most articles are unbiased. I occasionally see articles that are slightly biased, but it's nothing to write home about.

No.

probably a liberal bias, just like most things on the internet (not that i mind!)

none that are systemic.

fairly liberal fairly neutral

No

It has a bias towards objectivity vs subjectivity. I think there's a natural bias among educated persons towards 'liberalism'.

Not at all... Wait.. didnt wikipedia ban the church of scientology from editing their own page? I suppose thats a bias.. But lets be serious here - I think scientology is a load of shit and from what ive heard about their own efforts in propaganda i think wikipedia made a fair call.

Not usually, but if an article is biased, it typically has a warning before the article and states that that portion of the article needs to be rewritten.

I do not.

Liberal bias Establishment bias Atheistic bias

No

Bias against people who committed heinous crimes.

Depends on the article. It's not uncommon for a political candidate or corporation to modify their own wiki page. If you are reading a republican page, it will probable have some republican bias, and vice versa.

only if Redditors write the articles

Not that I've noticed. That being said, I don't read many articles where a political bias could come up.

I think it leaves itself too open to biases.

no

Reality has a liberal bias.

Liberal; then again, reality has a liberal bias, so it all evens out.

Not really. Typically objective for the most part, but very America centric

no but reddit sure does (obviously)

No

It has much more coverage in certain areas (reflective of its editors) but I don't know if I'd call that "bias". Broadly it is reflective of white, male, American, recent culture.

Depends on the article, but yes, sometimes.

Maybe slightly liberal.

Technically it has a liberal bias, but that is only based on that fact that reality has a liberal bias.

Of course. Everyone who edits has biases, but hopefully articles are seen by enough eyes that biases tend to even out and form an unbiased article.

I'm more concerned by deletionism and editors readiness to delete edits to "their" articles. I've attempted to edit an article to remove a misplaced double period and was told I was editing "their" article and that it was perfect. That is not ok.

No.

I don't use it political searches, unless it is for historical facts about politicians.

Anti-corporation, Liberal bias

I think some (controversial) articles may have a particular bias, but as a whole, it's pretty unbiased.

That depends on the articles. I've seen biases but I litter such articles with [citation needed] in hopes that the readers can take such opinionated works with a grain of salt.

No. The user base is wide enough that the inevitable biases cancel one another out.

Fucked if I know.

Slightly Liberal?

No. Maybe liberal-democratic, but that comes with the open-community territory.

pro-Israel anti-labor

NO

pro-Western; also, each page is probably more complimentary to its subject than truly neutral

Wikipedia has a liberal bias, as does reality.

Slight capitalist bias.

biased toward pop culture (especially obscure things with rabid fanbases), minor British bias/influence

If so, it is article-to-article rather than over the entire site.

I would imagine the biases differ depending on the article.

While biases exist on both ends, I believe conservatives abuse Wikipedia knowing that their followers will not go any further into fact checking than the site itself.

I also believe Wikipedia should remove edits from particular wikis and force approval from a mod on others to keep the bias at a minimum and accuracy at its highest.

I don't think Wikipedia as a whole has any biases, no. Individual articles certainly do, but it's silly to point out any in particular, just because the site is constantly changing on a second-to-second basis. A biased article that might have existed ten seconds ago could now be changed almost completely.

No more than the liberal leaning bias that is evident in all young, educated, and tech savvy groups.

Mildly leftist. It's biased toward rationality and secularism. Which are empirical, but still biases.

Also, there is an over-emphasis on "controversies" in biographies of contemporary politicians and celebrities.

Liberal (American sense)

Contributors/editors probably tend to be a little left-leaning, I think.

lots of nerd stuff

cats.

No obvious biases

Obviously. Obviously too lazy to list them too.

Wikipedia is as biased as the editors who devote their time to it. There are groups of people who purposely work to maintain skewed perspectives on certain WP pages, but there are also many many dedicated editors who work tirelessly to keep them NPOV.

Contemporary. Wikipedia has a tendency to judge historical movements on a rubric of morals based on modern society in a way that would cause scorn and scandal if they were discussing contemporary movement/society.

No real biases that are not disputed within the article

Tends to be more liberal than conservative.

Liberal; against pop-culture

Some article writers are obviously trying to push an agenda. Especially Political and Religious articles. The big pages feel more like a recruitment pamphlet sometimes more than a statement of fact. Also, to a lesser extent some people offhandedly discount certain competing theories (especially in historical articles) things that I think makes wikipedia a great source. The problem here is that the Wiki could link to another page if the author was not knowledgeable or unwilling to delve too deeply into a topic, but sometimes writers are too quick to take the textbook route of this is what happened now move along, there is nothing else to see here.

they are all food eaters

Controversial subjects are often edited, and not trust worthy, like Israel/Palestine articles, environmental issues, or Monsanto related articles.

The English Wikipedia has a heavy bias towards articles concerning events/people/places/things in English-speaking countries, although this is to be expected. Otherwise, I don't believe there is any systematic bias.

In general, no.

nope

nerd bias

Similar-ish to reddit â€“ average demographic of a Wikipedia editor is white, male, 20-35. That said, most articles are surprisingly neutral.

No, quite objective in my experience

There are some bias in some articles but not as a whole.

GAWD DAGGUM LIBERALS. But, not actually.

I think Wikipedia's generally biased toward the truth. So, as far as American politics, probably left-leaning.

No

no, but I was assigned to research a well-known historical event at work one time and they just about freaked out when I said "Well, Wikipedia says..." and immediately removed me from the project. Nevermind that the assistant who took over for me used Google and found the article that was cited by Wikipedia, there is still a stigma that it's a false free-for-all instead of a decently-cited repository.

Not as a whole

Yes, it probably leads Democratic, because the editors are most likely younger and youngsters tend to lean Democrat. Just my thinking.

Depends on the status of The Great Edit War.

Too pro-european, especially regarding the news-worthiness of Soccer and F1 racing results.

biased to jews

nah

Pretty balanced

Of course it does. Political, religious and corporate bias are rampant, but overall it's pretty decent.

I don't see many biases in the articles that I read.

Pretty good about not being biased, im my opinion.

Sometimes the writing is rather colloquial, but no over the top biases.

No

I don't want to say it has a liberal bias, but I'll quote Stewart who said "Isn't it weird how the truth has a liberal slant?"

More of an American bias, but that's pretty common with all social input sites now.

liberal, left leaning... likely due to who is most active online.

A bit of a liberal bias, but then again, so does reality.

I think Wikipedia has a bit of a liberal bias, according to American politics, but that would be in the center according to European politics. Life has a liberal bias.

no

It's user edited, so whatever leanings a user has will reflect in the most recent edit...but that is also the beauty, it usually gets rounded out over time.

truth has a liberal bias, obviously

Not that I have noticed.

Unknown

No

I think that there are articles which are significantly biased, however articles which are popular, but not temporally pertinent, tend to become unbiased as time and responsible editing permits. For example, a recent political debate may be biased the night after the debate however after a few months (or a few elections) the bias slowly evaporates and the facts sublimate.

Some of the pages on religious affiliations seem to be written by those who practice the religion.

Yes, they would be liberal or conservative, depending on the topic of the article.

On a large scale, no.

Articles about people or places that no one cares about (IE shitty B- celebrities, generic high schools) are often clearly self-authored. I think articles need to reach a certain interest level for this bias to be noticed and edited out.

Well, it definitely isn't conservapedia.

I think Wikipedia in general tends to be more liberal, because it's editors are younger and for the most part less conservative. Overall, I would say that Wikipedia does a good job of keeping this possible bias out of the articles.

Wikipedia as a whole? No. Individual Wikipedia contributers/editors. Of course.

No.

Um.. it seems to be ignorance biased in a sense that people believe the shit out of that site.

Left, exclusionist, nerd, western, liberty

your mother, this is too much info

Several articles might, but I think the editors fix most of them.

Occasionally you will see a biased article, generally on an uncommon issue, but overall no, it seems very objective.

Biases are rapidly adjusted to nil, so I do not think so, no.

None

It has biases towards allowing stupid people to go unchecked in moderating their way into decisions on articles. I've had the few edits that I've done go revoked within a month solely because someone wanted to have no edits.

Not that I have ever noticed.

The truth. Since anyone can edit articles, this does open them up to false facts and bias, but that also means that hundreds of other people are monitoring and correcting the content.

Liberal

I actually think that Wikipedia has done a really good job of keeping articles politically neutral. Additionally, I think its userbase may be too varied for any kind of global bias to become apparent.

Probably a slight liberal bias.

Yes, some political articles are biased, but most are not.

I recently discovered a few editors are anti-Islam.

It's edited from a western worldview. Whatever specific biases suffered by the group of editors.

A winged beast super depression tons of gold.

Wait, are we still doing the stream of consciousness thing...

On certain articles yes but I don't believe there is a systematic bias

I have no idea

No.

Of course Wikipedia has biases. I don't believe the entire thing is biased, however. Certain people write and edit certain articles that appeal to a certain crowd, and it differs between articles.

Conservative sometimes

Minority opinions can be overrepresented in longer articles, treating expert opinions and non-expert opinions as equally valid.

Nope

The world is so saturated with bias and opinion that I block it all out. I have no idea.

Somewhat left leaning, younger crowd doing most of the work

A little liberal and legalistic at times

I think there are liberal biases, certainly not to the extent that conservapedia implies, but its there. Traditional western biases as well. For example, one of my edits was for the dead sea scrolls, which jordan alleges that israel stole. This information is pretty important, yet wasn't mentioned at all because of a pro - israel bias.

I think it depends on the subject, but everything is biased to some degree.

not that I've seen

No.

Global, international, anti-provincial, egalitarian.

Slightly anti-Republican, Slightly pro-Populism. Strong US-centrism.

I think it's too big to have much bias on its own. Maybe a bit liberal.

Libertarian/Progressive

Not really. The sides are antagonistic so they should balance out on most pages.

nerd biases

the nerdy kinds

Not really

Undoubtedly yes, but I can't think of anything inparticular. I would think it would vary from article to article.

liberal bias

fuck this

Depends on the article.

Nope.

Truth has a liberal bias...but seriously no.

Haven't noticed.

Not really.

biased towards skepticism.

Liberal, predominantly male, middle class, American

It's definitely a technology and liberal bias. The people who want to edit a digital encyclopaedia that's completely free and crowd-sourced, tend to lean that way.

Of course, politicians staff members most definitely show an unbiased view through edits.

the admns are biased against stupid and intransigent editors, but the system is not efficient at getting rid of them.

the admns are biased against stupid and intransigent editors, but the system is not efficient at getting rid of them.

Pro-pedantic rules lawyer.

None

Not generally. Specific articles may attract people with biases.

No

Each language version has biases towards the viewpoint of its nationality (including the English version). Extensive knowledge of a subject can also be a sign that the editor has a particular stance on a topic (you're not going to be writing about, say, and obscure 70s musician's debut album if you're not a fan of their music).

leans left

Probably some sort of self selection bias where the only people who edit it are Internet literate and etc. Probably any resultant ideological bias is largely invisible to me because I'm also a part of that group.

liberal minded, as the subject matter is open, thus obvious more liberal. Conservative view points tend to require strict hierarchy control

I think technology favors the young, and young people tend to be more liberal minded. It's not an out and out bias, but the core demographic skews left of center more than the general populace.

no

Some articles are more prone to bias than others. Particularly those covering controversial topics.

Yes, Liberal.

Nope.

Deletionist.

A bunch of 20-somethings? Being politically biased? What kind of question is this?

It's impossible for people to be objective, so, there's that.

If it has a bias it would be liberal.

Liberal-progressive bias on controversial issues.

It has a bias for the truth.

Actually no, it seems that in most cases even the most persistent ideologues eventually give up to a consensus of quite fair and intelligent contributors and administrators.

the intellectual accuracy that can be called a leftist bias is present, for sure. it really depends from article to article, though.

Nope. Maybe there's a tiny liberal bias that gets obscured by my own confirmation bias but I find it to be highly objective (and I read political articles all the time).

From my experience I think Wikipedia has a liberal bias, leaning more towards scientific and human principles than spiritual principles.

Not intrinsically, though I tend to browse more of the science articles so it might be less of an issue than say, political issues.

Not really. It's probably biased against stupidity...

Liberal

Wikipedia doesn't but most articles are written/edited by youngish people who are often liberal-minded

Nah, brah.

The only biases are those of people who edit it for theirown gain

Not really.

Politically liberal, as I imagine the average Wikipedia editor falls in line with the same demographic as political liberals (younger, more highly educated, etc)

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias"

No, they have moderators and editors to keep that sort of thing in check. They're not stupid.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Probably liberal since the internet culture is came from is liberal. I'm not comparing to the claims of conservapedia at all.

i generally read math/science/physics articles, i think the political articles on the whole are rather neutral

Not really. I'm worried about the deletionists having too much power.

Individual articles often have a bias, but overall Wikipedia is a source that lends itself to less bias.

Wikipedia probably has a Western mindset bias

It also tends to produce excessively long articles about modern pop culture.

Other than that, I think it's one of the most reliable sources of information out there.

Not that I've seen.

Haven't really thought of this. I should pay more attention.

No. The broad scope of wikipedia keeps it from being unbiased. Individual articles may contain bias, but as a whole all points of view are represented.

Because of all the edit wars, I don't think wikipedia is capable of having a bias. Of course, that means anything remotely controversial is buried.

For the whole of Wikipedia: no. For specific articles: yes if the article is related to the author's interests.

No

Pro-capitalism, pro-Western, some bias towards Islam/Muslims, somewhat pro-Israel.

No, I would say both polar ends of the spectrum are well represented

Not that I know of

Wikipedia is definitely biased against amateur editors, especially on articles they deem very important. I have often had an accurate edit rescinded over no good reason at all, because they thought I was a vandal.

No.

Slight liberal and youth bias, but there's a very good attempt to compensate for it.

Not biais, but development is uneven. Science and IT article are top. Article of social sciences and humanities really sucks. As an anthropologist, I can tell you that most article are completely useless, incomplete, shallow, if not erronous.

Lots, however they are usually easy to spot

Nope

liberal

Slightly western progressive, liberal.

There are enough people of conflicting (but legitimate) viewpoints to ensure that pretty much everything has its place. Many articles that espouse a concept have an elaborate criticisms section.

I am new to reddit. I have used Wikipedia for years. Am not aware of any bias'.

Depending on the subject in question.

Professional and academic bias. Science articles are either written for lay persons or graduate students.

Any controversial topics can have editors guarding their few biased pages.

In favour of all the mainstream views because of WP:DUE

Liberal biased.

Maybe SLIGHTLY liberal, but I'd say it is about as unbias as you can get.

Yes: all biases that would apply to a nerdy undergraduate with a liberal background. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing.

Not as far as I can tell.

No

I don't think so. Wikipedia is pretty neutral overall.

Slight bias to liberal democracy and progressive secularism. Which matches my own.

Definitely, and sometimes long-standing editors won't stand the fuck down.

Liberal, like everything on the internet that's good ^_^

No

Slight left bias

Wikipedia shuts out new editors.

Liberal

When I do find articles with bias, I feel it's pretty evenly randomly biased. If anything, it's biased towards popular culture, whether that's the information most often covered in the media or the information most pertinent to any average person on the internet.

Of course it has biases because it is written by the most active internet users, who tend to fall under a certain category (more liberal than conservative, a certain age range, mostly male, etc.)

There is somewhat of a liberal bias. Most articles are written in a rather neutral point of view, but the length of articles that relate to liberalism are usually much more thorough and descriptive than those that relate to conservatism.

No.

Sometimes it's libertarian but in general an article will be biased in favor of what it's about. e.g. an article about Eugene Debs will be pro-Debs, and an article about libertarianism will be pro-libertarianism, and an article about socialism will be pro-socialism.

Also there will be dozens pages of shit about some nerdy shit but other important articles will be under a page.

the more technical pages are terrible, especially those about engineering shit. Also a bunch of articles about black holes contradict each other about details.

neutral

The bias of Wikipedia articles slant towards whichever social, political or scientific event can be exploited at the moment. First come, first propagandized.

Everyone has biases.

Wikipedia's barrier to entry, and lack of respect for knowledgable opinion is its weakest area.

Wich one? there are lots of Wikipedias. All are too deletionist and too recentist.

It's the Internets, so it shares most opinions and tends to be bias on a case by case basis. .

Not that I notice.

Factual

The internet is liberal therefore Wikipedia will always be slightly liberal.

Pretty much all bias can be attributed to someone not adding in another perspective. American-centric bias can be attributed to not having enough info about the European perspective, the Chinese, etc.

no

none

Yes. I am also biased in some of these directions, the problem with wikipedia is that it looks objective when it isn't.

Science bias. Sounds like a contradiction in terms. But the history of science has been all about routing out biases. A new bias problem emerges in the format of wikipedia--an interesting phenomenon occurs when *popular opinion* is that there is a scientific consensus for some proposition. Wikipedia is usually biased in making that proposition look like it is indisputable. Often there was no scientific consensus to begin with.

Hivemind

It's user submitted content so "yes" in all fields.

Lower level articles that get less attention may reflect the views of major contributors to them. Not the big articles.

Nope.

Wikipedia, like reality, has a well-known liberal bias.

I think the concept is silly.

Depends entirely on the article, and as a whole people appear to try not to be biased.

Nah.

The articles? Occasionally, but they fly in every which way. I do think that the editors and moderators or whatever tend toward cuntiness. They generally seem to have real type-a personalities, and want things only done a particular way. I guess that makes sense for what the site is, but it gets annoying. Immediately.

I'm sure it does, it must, but the stance of "the articles must sound like an encyclopedia" is very good.

None.

Yes. Blacks

Difficult to tell with so many editors from so many countries with different political agendas.

Slightly liberal; opinions drawn from a more stereotypicall male perspective.

US-centric

Like .3% liberal at times

Reality has a known liberal bias.

Liberal

Not particularly. Perhaps slightly liberal, but most of the articles I read are about scientific subjects, which are almost invariably unbiased.

The more frequently-viewed articles tend to be free of noticeable bias, in my opinion. These articles also get edited frequently, and the bias gets removed through the discussion process (most of the time).

In fact, the discussion pages themselves should be taken into account when determining bias in Wikipedia articles. An article may have some bias in it, but usually its presence is under discussion. This is something that most information sources lack, and I believe that it contributes to an overall lack of bias in Wikipedia as compared to mainstream information sources. With Wikipedia, a reader can in a sense "see" where the final version of the information came from; they could not do the same with, for example, Britannica and CNN.

Not that I have noticed

I think Wikipedia is generally unbiased. However, I think that, due to the people who regularly visit Wikipedia, could have a tendency to lean more towards the liberal side.

bias towards mediocrity. Experts in my field will often put in little corrections or in the past write very beautiful and lucid explanations of something only to be overruled by armchair experts or young students who have a much weaker grasp of the material. It got to the point long ago that most of us don't bother any more. It is a shame. I am generally too busy nowadays to try again, but maybe I will at some point in the future.

Slightly liberal, but less biased than most main stream news sources (at least most main stream american news sources)

liberal

the bias that information should take center stage, not ideologies (aside from the pages concerning ideologies)

Bias is only found in articles edited by one person or articles with little activity, thus few people editing.

Yes, can't provide examples, but bias is existent especially when reading different versions(language) of the same article.

Its a little biased towards Truth.

Too "delete delete delete" heavy Sometimes too neutral

Left-leaning, like the rest of the internet.

Not really.

depends on the page...

Western-centric Anti-Islamic

On more well known topics it definitely seems neutral, but on lesser known topics it can drift into some more opinionated values

Bias toward traditional journalism when there are now major media completely ignored by traditional journalists. Most notably, a YouTuber with a million subscribers can't get in Wikipedia until a small newspaper mentions about them. That's a biased standard of notoriety.

I read somewhere that it is primarily written by men ages 20-35.I think it has larger coverage of science and pop culture. Not that it doesn't make a concerted effort to write about the humanities, but it does so in kind of a detached way. I don't know how to explain that last part.

Not as an entity, but I'm sure some smaller pages are biased in the favour of whomever wrote them.

Nope

liberal, nerdy

I believe that it tries to remain as objective as possible, but will often times show a liberal bias occasionally.

I think there is probably an underlying liberal bias. But I do believe editors genuinely try to withhold any bias that skews the information in the article into untruth.

I do not. It's open to be edited by both sides of the political spectrum. Conservapedia is an example of a biased wikia.

left leaningish

No

This is a complicated question. I think Wikipedia has fewer biases than it's often accused of having, but for example the English Wikipedia has a strong bias towards the worldview of English-speakers. (You can match this response against a comment I made and de-anonymize me!) Not sure that's what you meant.

I think it has a cultural bias towards deletionism, which makes me angry. I could talk for paragraphs about how harmful deletionism is, but let's leave it at that.

Not particularly. I think one of the benefits of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit, and that allows for people to fight bias and work for fair and balanced articles.

That said, politicians and corporations definitely edit and maintain their own pages- there is probably bias inherent there, despite all precautions.

Western, liberal, scientific

I haven't noticed any

Meyers Briggs types aren't stable, they change with task, time of day, social setting- I wouldn't trust them. Wiki has a bias towards even-handedness, even when this means equal time for crap.

Depends on the subject, editors, etc. Sometimes less significant articles written by one person contain a great deal of bias (for example, band pages, obscure programming languages, slang word etymologies)

Overall, no. Certain topics can be biased one way or another, based on the authors/editors of the articles. Different language versions represent different biases in their articles.

Slightly left-leaning on some articles, but overall very balanced. (I'm a liberal myself)

Reality

Deletionism.

Liberal as the rest of the internet and well-educated people

never considered it

If anything, I would say Wikipedia is extremely consistent with removing incorrect information.

I think it does a remarkable job of being unbiased.

I haven't noticed any.

Of course it does; those who are likely to frequent the interwebs. In general, the distribution of information is a left-leaning force.

No.

You clearly hate the truth about Paul Revere. But no, seriously, I'm constantly impressed by the work and dedication of WP editors.

The Internet usually has a mild left-wing bias, but I wouldn't say there is any overall bias in Wikipedia content, or at least not in any meaningful or noticeable way.

Depends on the article.

Each article has its own biases, which can be teased out, but it is difficult for wikipedia on the whole to have a bias due to the number of articles. If anything, it may have a slight liberal bias.

Not really. Being edited mostly on the internet by internet-types like myself probably leads to some sort of liberal bias, but I think the community tries very hard to be unbiased. I believe that they succeed

reality bias : )

not really

depends on the editor and article in question. most are balanced though I believe

Perhaps a slight liberal bias based on the fact that the computer-savvy are typically younger and have more of a leftist approach to things.

Affluent white males write most of it I imagine.

I think that some articles are slanted towards or against a topic, but there isn't an overarching theme

Sure, they're liberal, because the world has an inherently liberal bias.

It's partial to majority opinion, which is a dangerous way to write history.

Overwhelming culture of "deletionism".

Haven;t noticed any.

None that I can tell. Most biased articles seem to cover both sides well.

Liberal, biased, intelligently liberal

Certain articles are obviously biased, where it seems likely that people with a specific set of interests would be interested in the subject/know enough to write about it. However, it does not seem that Wikipedia overall is biased.

No.

Holy hell, I'm too drunk to let you know. But I don't believe so. Althjough I don't read many political-based articles, the articles that I do read seem to not be biased at all.

no

No, I think Wikipedia does a good job at staying as objective as we can reasonably expect.

Not that I can think of.

No inherent bias, other than being democratic with a small "d" and run by intellectuals, which I feel will always tend slightly to be against oppression.

Possibly slightly liberal. Though it's possible that I just notice the liberal aspects more since I am liberal myself. Or maybe it's because I equate science and being well informed with a liberal attitude.

don't have that long

I think there is probably a general liberal bias, but that is kinda the nature of the internet.

no.

No

No, but I usually use Wikipedia for science-related things or to read about interesting historical happenings.

nope, it seems good and objective to me, the model of crowd sourced journalism, some areas need work but they are making progress every day

No.

I think they try not to, but it probably leans a bit to the left.

Not systematically

The bias swings from one side to the other on most political pages, with comments comparing the subject to Hitler in liberal bios, and comments comparing subjects to, well, Hitler, on conservative bios. I vote for a tie in crazy leanings. Except the bigfoot people, they seem to use wikipedia in droves.

No overall bias, but countless narrow biases determined mainly by which editors have more time on their hands.

Fact-based, to the extent that is currently reflected as bias.

A bit liberal, but I enjoy that.

Probably a bit left-leaning.

Not really. Most articles are neutral, which is why I prefer it over other sources that might, say, have clear bias towards one party or another.

It tends to lean left.

nope

No. I think they strive to be neutral.

no

Possibly slightly liberal.

i dont want to type

tad left

Not that I'm aware of

I imagine it depends completely on the article, but I'd be willing to bet that on average it has a liberal bias because high levels of education are often associated with liberalism.

No.

Facts have a well known liberal bias.

Certain articles will have bias, due to those who edit them. On an overall, however, I don't believe there is a great net bias in terms of politics, religion, etc.

THE MOST BRUTAL AND ABDOMINABLE LIBERAL BIAS I'VE EVER SEEN. ONE CAN'T IDENTIFY AS A RACIST, OR THE MODS WILL EAT HIM ALIVE.

you have to have a phone to be in the phonebook. you have to be on teh interwebs to be concerned about wikipedia. biased toward left youth, technologically savvy and interested.

No.

For the most part no. In my experience, the few biased articles were clearly marked asking for more information.

Left-wing, pro-Western

Following editing and peer review Wikipedia is about as unbiased as a source created by volunteers could possibly be.

Not within popular articles.

Liberal, Probably

It's hard to find a political bias on a group-sourced edit. Some articles are biased in some directions and others in other directions.

Every story has a bias.

I'm sure there are biases, but then again I don't know if it's possible (or necessarily should be) to write without biases. However, from what I've seen, the biases are too article-specific to be put in any particular category.

Wikipedia itself is incapable of being biased. Editors, on the other hand...

No

Definitely left leaning... not that I'm complaining

It's pretty obvious when it's biased. Damn zealots. Usually politically... I think? I'm sorry I'm watching The Office in another window.

For the most part, it seems fairly balanced.

no

Liberal, non-partisan

no

its biased towards pedantry - i.e. editors are pedantic and quibble about 'notability' and stuff

Overall, no. But each article may contain bias that agrees with the subject matter involved. However, bias against the article's subject is more rare, and seems to be more likely treated as vandalism and removed.

Wikipedia has always seemed slightly leftist to me.

i think articles may have bias, but not wikipedia in general

No.

free information when written by both the winners and the losers gives it both a more varied perspective and less reliable content. interesting but not for serious at this point.

Somewhat. Pages about current political candidates are most likely biased, pages about corporations are definitely edited by those corporations and biased. There are probably other things which I can't think of at the moment.

Certain articles take vaguely political stances but nothing so prevalent and bias that it seriously impacts the article's quality. The political leans vary by article, and I am sure over time they will be edited out.

No.

I think the bias depends on the article. For the most part I think Wikipedia's articles stray closer to the 'observer' role. But, as it is a service anyone can edit. sometimes you come across articles (I may be thinking specifically of Auto-related articles) that are clearly written by the corporate entity backing the article (ie, "the sleekly designed FORD TOYOTA TACOMA 2-DOOR SEDAN IS LITERALLY UNLIKE ANY VEHICLE YOU'VE EVER SEEN BEFORE!!, outrageous capitalization intentional). for most things i think the large volume of caring editors results in good content.  but there always seems to be untrustworthy entries that get by.  I always view Wikipedia as a great entry to a subject, which a great thing, something to be proud of.  But I never think of it as a definitive source of info, which is not necessarily a bad thing.    The wide swath of info is impressive.  Unfortunately, I do think younger, future generations do think of it as the 'end all, be all.'  Not your fault/responsibility as I think the general point is one of inquisitive exploration. But perhaps you can foster this curiosity by clearly stating that your posts are IN NO WAY GUARANTEED TO BE ACCURATE and should be INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED. TL;DR: good source for general info, hope young kidz don't see it as the only place to get knowledge.

no specific topic, but many not so popular articles are biased. recently seen in various articles about architects, medical drugs and climate change factors.

Objectivity

Toward fact. Aka liberal.

Nope.

None

N/A

Liberal-Democratic

Follows scholastic lines, which are more progressive.

no

No outright political biases/leanings but a definite bias against "outsiders" editing articles.

No a site can not have a bias although some of the articles may theres pretty non-partison.

I've seen biases in all directions, but as articles mature they seem to become more objective

Left wing bias in some articles.

I think individual editors are given too much creedence, to the point that their opinions and beliefs have too much influence.

not that i can name off the top of my head

No

Everything has a bias

Yes but that's part of having every side of the argument explained.

Every article I've read was pretty objective. I use it for school mostly but it's not usually my only source of information.

I haven't detected any, which could mean that we share biases. If you're into the idea of a political spectrum, you could say that a large proportion of modern intellectuals fall somewhere slightly left of the middle. Those who favor faith and blind intuition would be likely to sense a bias in that manner of discourse.

liberal

Yes, different in each article for obvious reasons. Overall, I'd guess more liberal.

i think that in a world where reason and logic and fact have become products and "evils" of liberalism and higher thought, perhaps some would view wikipedia as biased. but i do not see reason, logic, and fact as biased in any way. so no.

ever so slightly liberal

Leftist political bias

Yes, western-centric.

I haven't noticed any that it has an entity.

Probable leaning toward more liberal, science-based explanations and interpretations of events/phenomena.

Sometimes, too pro-American. Namely, the article on "Thanksgiving".

Absolutely. Powerful interests have the resources to constantly monitor and edit any disparaging claims or remarks. There are also many individuals that will try to push their own agenda.

No just overlong articles on nerd shit

Slightly to the left politically, most of the time.

Unlike Reddit the biases of Wikipedia are a subject of scientific study, and efforts are made to reduce them.

depends on topic of conversation. massively lacking in specialized math and science concepts but i understand there is some limit. i don't really care about the political mess on wikipedia.

The more forceful people take over controversial topics. It's very difficult to post dissenting opinions about popular talks.

I think the information has been really objective on all the articles I've read. Criticism subsections is one thing that comes right to my mind.

It's openly editable and explicitly strives for objectivity. I don't think long-term biases are very prevalent.

NOPE.

Yes, but that bias likely varies depending on the article. If I had to list an overarching bias, I'd say slightly liberal. But overall, it's fairly objective.

no

Don't care

Slightly left political bias Strong bias towards open source

Bias varies from article to article. Fringe positions are not immediately dismissed categorically. Some mistake this for bias. Wikipedia devotes considerably more resources (slight abuse of language) to topics that interest its members, so coverage and omission are subject to the what the community deems noteworthy. However, Wikipedia does a wonderful job of promoting neutrality with regards to controversial issues.

Yes

No

don't really follow moderator discussions enough to know

i dont particularly read wiki for political information so i do not know.

Sometimes.

Wikipedia is rather neutral

Neutral to Liberal. Fact is more important than biases, and the conservatives hate that they can't twist history or facts.

Probably an anti-racism bias, but I couldn't care less about that.

No.

its pretty collage studently

Deletionists make me sad :(.

Slight liberal bias

At times, there are unnoticed changes that are done for or against certain subjects. While bothersome, they are usually fixed rather quickly.

Feminist

Liberal bias, generally.

Reality has a liberal bias

"The truth has a liberal bias" kind of applies here, but not dramatically.

Wiki itself is neutral but the spin doctors will go to great lengths to put in their 2 cents. Look up 'Skinny Virgin'

Pro-America

Nope.

Wikipedia is actually one of the few seemingly un-biased resources out there.

Wikipedia seems to be a bit biased towards the left, but, as they say, truth has a liberal bias.

I believe individual articles may contain the biases of their editors.

no

Liberal bias

Feminism

It is PORTRAYED to have a liberal bias, but you can't characterize an entity.

Slightly liberal, similar to reddit but more tempered.

fuck deletionists

Sure, but I avoid articles which seem to be biased. As a whole I don't think a bias would be possible.

I've never used Wikipedia for political facts.

Liberal if any. Doesn't reality share that same bias?

Nope.

Very liberal

i don't think so

I think it has a mild left bias, but so does the truth.

Wikipedia is inherently biased towards either the author, or the general belief of the populace

Nope

America-centric, capitalism-centric

The "biases" that Wikipedia has are the result of the "bias of the internet", having a secular, scientific leaning. However, this is NOT the result of having a special type of person editing Wikipedia, and more due to the amazing number of people in the community not being afraid to call something out as bullshit.

capitalism

Liberal bias, but then again facts and truth have a liberal bias

Depends on the specific article or issue.

Nah

Slightly liberal

Liberal and techno bias. Those edit articles tend to be more tech oriented and thus may have a slanted view on things. We don't get enough in depth information from those who aren't necessarily tech savvy enough to know they can edit articles.

I think the goal of Wikipedia is to be unbiased, but the open nature of its editing means that sometimes biases exist. I'd venture to say that blatant biases are usually retracted by editors.

Depends on the topic. Re: chemical compounds? No. But for, say, human rights, maybe left-leaning. Varies because people who are typically interested in certain subjects are sometimes (loosely?) definable according to political/religious/whatever leaning -- but more often not.

Probably.

Nothing different from Reddit's. I'd guess they have very similar user bases. I mean, take r/politics, for example. Someone called them out on being biased *when they thought they were being unbiased*. Same deal. This isn't the Encyclopaedia Britannica here.

Not really. Articles with bias certainly exist but they are typically pruned quickly enough.

In theory, no; however, the truth has a liberal bias.

Lots, often conflicting.

I haven't read an article that made me think they had a bias.

Nope.

Not especially. The outer fringes of wikipedia swing depending on the influx of editors.

Nope

Human, but barely.

The bias varies wildly from article to article.

too high

I once tried to edit Michelle Bachman's page to include her well-documented and obvious aversion to science, with sources no less. It was changed back within 8 hours and an email was sent to me asking me not to edit wikipedia.

If facts don't belong in Wikipedia, I don't know what does.

I don't know.

If an article is kept true to Wikipedia's standards, I think it comes off as fairly unbiased.

I do. We'll know wikipedia is edited by "everybody"... but everybody is medium-upper class mostly. It is worth considering.

Though I also accept that many times that bias is almost imperceptible, and does almost no harm to the slighty-concious reader. Not even woth mentioning that I do think that it is better anyway that most newspapers.

I think Wikipedia is biased towards science and maybe with a really, really subtle Libertarian bent, but it's not immediately noticeable and doesn't get in the way.

They support mainstream points of view too much, despite calling it a "neutral" point of view.

There is systematic bias towards the present, America, the English-speaking world generally, technology, and male interests.

liberal

-

No

I think it depends on the article, there are often very charged articles in both directions, sometimes with legitimacy, sometimes without. Often times "serious" breaches get shut down, like with the Church of Scientology's ban on wikipedia editing.

Liberal, left leaning.

Some bias toward favoring progressive ideas, but rarely misconstruing information.

none

Not generally, specific articles possibly.

Wikipedia itself doesn't.

The editors might, but they usually don't let that come out in the articles.

Like the questions above about Wikipedia editors, this is a redundant question. "Wikipedia" cannot have any opinion or perspective.

In answer to the question "Do you think the people who contribute most to Wikipedia share a particular bias?" and the obvious answer is yes, that they lean to the left, like any group of people with access to and a desire to take in information.

If at all, then liberal. But that may just be *my* bias :P

Wikipedia has a very strong bias against original research. That's about the only *big* issue I have with it.

Liberal, easily liberal.

Truth has a liberal bias.

Truth has a liberal bias

I understand the intent of the question, but I do not feel it is particularly meaningful.

Wikipedia is often accused of having a liberal bias. But this often seems to be, to a large extent, because of detractors' discomfort with reality. E.g. Wikipedia states evolution as a fact, does not lend credibility to religious claims, describes modern torture techniques as "torture" rather than "enhanced interrogation", and so on. All these things have been criticised at one point or another as evidence of liberal bias.

Of course there are isolated instances of significant and legitimate bias that sneak into articles around the place, but that bias is by and large inconsistent across articles, and tends to be neutralised as articles gain popularity.

The editor demographic's has a gender-bias.

The rule against adding citations to your own peer-reviewed articles biases against experts contributing to articles that discusses their domain of expertise.

Mostly just a bias toward itself. You can tell from my answers that I've spent a lot of time on Wikipedia, but it's problematically full of people who can't handle new users. People who can't imagine anybody could make valuable contributions even if they can't yet follow a thousand rules to the letter.

It's also full of people who are not like that, but they're quieter.

Edit wars, POV articles, etc.

Wikipedia through its nature has an obvious bias against original research.

Yes, a lot, but not as a whole. Only individual articles about more obscure topics seem biased to me.

Some bias on some political and religious articles

Wikipedia as a whole? No. Some editors and articles? Yes. No biases have stood out as prevalent, however, and what little biases I have seen have varied.

So there is occasional editorial flavor, but if there are overall biases, I have not seen them.

Yes, they vary with each person, but they are very hard to pinpoint

depends on the article

Reality has a well-known liberal bias

left leaning

Pretty unfriendly to new editors.

Depends on who edits the articles. Can't remember the exact figures but an online article said that as most edits were done by 20-30 yr old guys they knew alot about a certain subject but lacked knowledge in other areas. Makes sense i suppose.

Hardly any real biases,

maybe against new users editing.

Very much an 'American' source of information. Generic terms such as 'War of Independence' (though not that one specifically, as it has been fixed) sometimes redirect to American articles. Articles that mention modern political figures, companies and case studies tend to be citing off of American literature and therefore refers mainly to America-related content.

This can be really annoying for non-US english-speaking readers.

Political: Perhaps slightly left-leaning, due to the average contributor's political stance?

Haven't really noticed any.

It still has a systemic bias toward developed nations, though that is slowly improving.

nah

Probably a liberal bias

Nope

It's conservative in both senses. In striving to reach consensus unpopular facts are downplayed if not ignored.

It, like life, has a Liberal bias (in the American sense of the word).

It has a lot in other than English articles. (I use it in German, French, Hungarian, Russian and English.)

none

slight liberal

Liberal.

huge status bias in the form of deletionism

Reality has a well known liberal bias. --Stephen Colbert

I think that whether or not Wikipedians have biases, Wikipedia is very unbiased (unless you consider a preference for rationalism/evidence-based-thought over faith to be a bias)

slightly left leaning

Liberal, if any?

Biases shift on an article to article basis.

too many fucked up policies about editing.. deletionism..

Each article has it's own bias, sometimes it's tolerable, usually dependant on the exposure of the artice.

Can't really avoid them, but not as many as you'd think. I think it definitely serves an audience for each individual article.

I think with the editors calling for citations and references back and forth, it does a well enough job of leveling out.

Depends on the article. For more popular articles, critical mass will generally make them quite objective.

Beyond the occasional vandalism or similar edits, none.

The same "liberal" bias as anything based on facts

Horrible "systemic bias", as they call it there.

Slight liberal bias (just like reality).

n/a

No.

Not that I'd notice. Not an American.

Anglocentrism

so far nope, dont think so

While individual writers/editors may display some bias in individual articles, I would generally say: no, Wikipedia does not have any bias.

I haven't encountered any.

If the the article in question is obscure enough to be carefully manicured by those whose interests are on the line by its publication, my skepticism skyrockets. I will read the article about my town or about a celebrity and note the very PR-friendly language, for example.

I don't believe that "Wikipedia" as an entity itself has any biases; its editors certainly may, and I read each article with varying levels of suspicion accordingly. Who stands to benefit? Who would take a hit, financially or otherwise? Who has made changes in the past? I read everything that way, though -- content on Wikipedia is, in my experience, relatively objective.

i don't think it is possible or fair to generalize the intelligence or personality of wikipedia editors.

"reality has a liberal bias"

No

Not really in the English one.

liberal

Yeah, every editor has an agenda, even if it is an agenda of unbias.

Nope none whatsoever

Only what certain editors put

Only what certain editors put

If you are liberal you will believe it to be slightly right leaning. Conservatives will likely perceive left-wing bias. That seems like a healthy thing to aim for.

derp

No

Depends on the article and editors, but they do exist

It tends to have a bit of a left-wing bias merely because of the user base. But it's not a dramatic bias nor does it show on most articles.

None

Editors seem more concerned about their rules than being the best possible information source.

No

I think they are kept largely in check.

It is difficult to write about controversies surrounding a group or person without bias, since most of the information is coming from one polarized side. It's always going to be "Some critics say" or "Advocates agree that". The best that Wikipedia can do is to show both polarized sides and refrain from endorsing one side or the other.

Overall, I don't think that Wikipedia has any systematic bias.

Unsecured articles have vandal bias.

I think it has a ever so slight (and I use this very lightly, almost jokingly) socialist bias from the very nature of a volunteer edited encyclopedia, but it also tries very hard to undo this bias.

It seems objective for the most part

Nope.

nope

No.

No

No.

I feel like there is bias if the subject is a powerful entity. I feel like the staffs of politicians and companies edit articles to make themselves look better.

Depends on the article.

no

I'm sure they sneak in. It would be nearly impossible from them not to be in there. At least until another person removes it.

The availability of such a vast knowledge base with access to pretty much any topic, will always be viewed as left leaning. The conservatives would rather "cherry pick" the topics as to hide issues they would rather you not be able to research. I believe that Wikipedia is not leaning one way or the other, and should continue to have references to every thing on the planet. As it does now.

Male-centric, or anti-female.

Probably a little left-leaning politically.

Maybe liberal

Seems liberal.

No

No

Some articles have a definite leaning one way or another, but on the whole it probably balances out. There are quite a few articles - mostly about companies - that were clearly written by a PR person or at least someone with a stake in the company.

Editors have biases on different subjects...

wikipedia seems biased against new editors. i refuse to attempt to be a part of it even though there are some things I could expand or edit.

Seems to be some editor bias. Only based on news articles I've read and some comments.

Don't recall.

Possibly some bias towards the U.S. in some articles. Understandable with the American online population.

Historical revisionism in some cases. For example, the article for the Opium Wars was clearly dominated by pro-Chinese editors, and had a VERY anti-British bias.

Liberal

no

left-wing

politics and crime. sometimes victims families edit articles and they seem to be a little biased...

Kind of a tech bias: some fields like art have lesser quality articles

If any, the bias is humanistic: free access to the world's information, all the while being able to change and adapt to new information and edit erroneous facts.

No political or economic bias, but definitely a social liberation bias. And that's a damn good thing for humanity.

We all know that reality has a liberal bias.

I think that Wikipedia has a bias towards information that is easily available online.

Not particularly?

Nope

I didn't notice any biases in English Wikipedia. However Balkan countries have pretty biased ethnic/national attitudes in some articles about various historical events, persons etc.

Not terribly so, though anti-conservative news has more complete coverage than anti-liberal news. No lies, though.

Dependent on the article, some items are more susceptible to bias than others, just like anything. I find myself usually using it as a technical/encyclopedia reference and those types of articles by nature carry less of a bias but to them being science and information based.

Liberal, Gen-Y Popular Culture

No

no

I don't think Wikipedia as an organization has any biases (at least not that I've noticed), but certainly certain authors do.

It's biased towards the truth. Being biased towards the truth, it has a liberal slant. This can't be helped, and it exists for the same reason that so many institutions of higher learning lean liberal as well.

No.

no.

None

Some articles are biased one way or another, but there seems to be no strong overall trend.

No.

Not that I've noticed.

No

Individual editors have their biases, but as a whole, I think the editors balance each other out.

I think biases are usually removed fairly quickly from articles.

wikipedia can provide a vehicle to distribute individual biases, but it's system is fairly good at correcting those articles that reflect bias.

No, articles seemed to be panned rather nicely and give pros and cons on a fair basis.

I think the editors have biases and that the policies of Wikipedia does the best it can to mitigate those, but can never succeed in fully averting those. We are products of our own life experiences.

Not especially.

left, right, up, down

no

No

slightly left

No

- none -

The edit nazis are horrible, like seriously will not see anyones point but their own, despite them being horribly wrong.

Yes, because of the left wing bias in academia the people in the best positions to edit most articles are left wing. They try to keep it objective, but there's often a little bias that seeps through.

Ultra-Liberal.

liberal

religion biased

No, Wikipedia is the least biased source of information I have ever used.

No

No

No.

Depends on the article.

It tends to go with scientific consensus and is flippant of rogue and fringe groups.

Wikipedia as a community selects for some pedantic, bureaucratic people.

Political articles often have issues.

Not that I've noticed.

No.

No, nothing overt

Not particularly

Liberal, progressive, left-leaning

Nothing significant, however achieving absolutely no bias is impossible.

Wikipedia as such has guidlines and rules. Any biases are those of individual editors.

It runs the risk of becoming used by others with agendas... but it's usually pretty neutral and straight-forward, not to mention most of the things I look up seem to be sciencey, culture-related, or a persons biography.

yesm it's liberal

no, it seems like it takes pains to be neutral. You can see strain though. Especially with republicans (both those who want defend and villify, both are pretty nuts)

Biases are limited to personal biases of individual editors. No overall bias.

No I do not. Sometimes people don't agree w/ facts, though.

Wikipedia, even if it runs off of donations, has a bias in the business sense. They don't like losing money, and will do most anything to avoid loss, and gain more income, but they haven't stooped to anything extreme, yet.

Slightly liberal

I believe most Wikipedia articles have a biases towards themselves, such as they are more likely created, edited and visited by individuals that are bias towards that subject.

Liberal leaning.

it may lean a little left

Only on the pages which have clearly been edited by biased political figures or their lackeys.

Extremists from all sides write and edit articles.

Liberal, like reality :P

Just like reality, Wikipedia has a very slight liberal bias. Almost every article I have read has been as neutral as possible and any apparent bias comes from the fact that statement require real world references before being allowed.

Wikipedia is full of biases, usually pitted against each other in each article. It's like that game where two people write an essay, alternating each line. You can easily see the two opposed sides fighting in the sentences, sometimes even in the article titles. Coming to a neutral solution can be slow and complicated - see Gdansk vs Danzig, pro/anti circumcision, pro/anti wall in Israel, pro/anti Scientology and so on.

English Wikipedia has an inclusion bias towards things of importance to English speakers, but it still manages to have a huge amount of English-language information on non-English speaking countries.

Wikipedia, the institution, has an anti-outsider bias. Admins can get away with more bad edits, and are more often given the benefit of the doubt, than an outsider.

Every factual source has bias. That said, I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

no

Liberal, but the editors do a good job of keeping the articles mostly neutral

Lots of individual articles or clusters of articles are biased by single editors or a group of editors, but I have not observed any systemic bias.

Wikipedia is biased towards the popular anglophonic ideologies, many of the articles in multilingual reddits are almost directly based upon the English version. (Japanese, Korean and Chinese are starting to move away from this trend and every culture seems to have one or two pet articles that are radically different from the English version in terms of content and bias.)

Specifically it's often Americano centric which means that people from NZ, AUS, GB etc are less represented.

As most educated people and educators are left leaning I am also fairly confident that the left is represented to a greater degree than those in the right. American political concerns being represented to a greater degree than other political concerns etc etc etc.

It has a bias toward covering Western culture and toward academic coverage.

Leaning on the liberal side (maybe?)

It hangs slightly to the left.

Since different editors have different views it usually involves what the original post says vs what the editor wants to keep.

None, unless an article has been vandalised to promote specific political intentions.

Nope.

No

No

Depends on the article.

In any user based submission system, the information is susceptible to the basis of the users.

It depends on the article.

Articles about democrats, liberals, and most independents usually have positive regard. Articles about conservatives or republicans, on the other hand, usually have snide tones.

Not that I've noticed... Also haven't looked.

Not necessarily

Absolutely in individual articles. There seems to be two sides to many of the "controversial" shit on Wikipedia and unfortunately this bleeds thru with massive bias quite often.

Not that I've noticed.

No.com

Not really.

Liberal political bias

Yes, Wikipedia has a liberal slant to many topics. I attribute this to the fact that liberals generally perceive themselves to be more intellectual and thus more likely to share their knowledge without realizing that it is often skewed by the liberal mentality.

-

No.

I haven't seen any biased information. But I'd guess that the editors are probably a crowd similar-ish to the reddit userbase, so they're perhaps a bit on the liberal side? As I say though, that's only based off of guesses, I haven't seen any articles that I've thought were biased.

Less bias than most sites. May lean ever so slightly left.

Left-leaning and more internet-centric than "the real world" I lean left myself in most things but because Wikipedia's editors are mostly representative of "upper level" internet (upper level meaning more "acceptable" websites, Reddit being higher "level" than say, a porn-centric torrent aggregator) Wikipedia shares the same biases Reddit and similar websites do.

yes, but it depends on the article

Not that I have noticed.

It's biased towards that which can be proven. This makes sense to me, but might not to, for example, a Christian or a homeopath.

political religious

Subjects that people who regularly use computers are interested in are generally better represented

Liberal

Mostly balanced

Liberal and Western

It has whatever biases people bring to it; some articles have a different bias than others because different subsets of people are paying attention to them.

Not really... depends on subject matter.

People edit Wikipedia. People have all kinds of biases. As a whole, Wikipedia tends to get neutral over time.

No.

Tends to be very liberal and left-leaning Tends to be at least slightly anti-American

NO.

Some political, also a tendency to avoid controversial or confrontational information on some topics.

nope

Yes. A lot of things are US centric. Mainly the English wikipedia. Being english the de facto world language, english articles should not be based on the US ideology/notability.

It's elitism.

Liberal

Generally a western, American-focused world view

Liberal (subtle lean)

I'm sure there are biases as well as honest mistakes. I don't read too many articles that can be biased.

I do not.

Right-wing political editing to create their own "truth".

No.

Uncertain.

None that I have seen.

Varies from article to article

Corporations/governments can edit articles to their own slant.

Unchecked rudeness of the in-crowd discourages contributions from people who are not at the top of the heap (white sort-of-educated male native-English-speakers). This reduces the quality of the pages.

pro israel

Depends on the article,

Liberal

Usually liberal if anything

Yes, liberal-leaning

None

Most likely, but I am not aware of which specific ones.

Fairly balanced

I would guess more liberal bias.

Overall it does not. However, articles can sometimes reflect the specific biases of their main authors.

Generally no bias.

No

More liberal then conservative. More western then eastern. More technological then Luddite.

Somewhat liberal

Notability requirement. An article about a scientist can be removed because he didn't have enough publications or isn't known well enough, but an article about a Pokemon or any other fictional character can be pages long.

I think some editors can be especially harsh in discourse, but generally they do a good job calling each other out on BS.

I think that wikipedia sometimes becomes too obsessed with "notability" regarding articles, and some editors can go on deletion crusades.

On the whole, Wikipedia is rather neutral. Then again, I don't spend too much time on the articles that are likely candidates for bias (politics and religion and what not), so I can't make an informed opinion.