Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideological bias on Wikipedia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I'm not going to try to summarize everything said here. A rough cut at a summary would be that the deleters feel this is a case of WP:FRINGE, WP:COATRACK, and is a WP:POVFORK of Criticism of Wikipedia. The keepers disagree. I don't see any substantial consensus here. Not so much because of a failure to reach any vague percentage-of-!votes threshold, but because there are valid arguments on both side. One argument that stands out in my mind is that this is a very new article. This is obviously a controversial topic and people will continue to work on this. In a couple of months, this will hopefully reach some stable point, and it will be easier to judge the value of this. It can be brought back for another look then. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Ideological bias on Wikipedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I started to edit the article, then realized it's a WP:COATRACK (and/or WP:POVFORK). It seems to comprise (a) elements from topics we already cover in the articles reliability of Wikipedia, criticism of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia community, and (b) a compilation of conservative publications opining that there's a liberal bias. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: Notice of this discussion was added to Village Pump (miscellaneous) Atsme 📞📧 17:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - there is clearly a great deal of scholarly research done on this topic, per the article, as well as claims of bias (from laughable to credible) reported in mainstream media. Wikipedia's ideological balance has arguably been discussed longer and more widely than its gender bias on Wikipedia or racial bias on Wikipedia. Its not a COATRACK or POVFORK, its a consolidation of a style matching those other bias articles, which were created in much the same way by pulling from other existing articles about Wikipedia concerns and which are now flourishing. -- Netoholic @  18:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To the closer: I'd like to expand on my comment after reading some of the other comments here and I ask you to keep some things in mind. I have no doubt that the participants here voted in good faith based on their own views, and some of them raise some excellent points.
 * Scope/purpose of the article: I completely agree with the nominator when he says "we already cover in the articles reliability of Wikipedia, criticism of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia community". The topic of this article sits squarely in the center of these topics because critics are concerned and analysts are curious about the reliability of Wikipedia based on potential for bias of its human editors - the opening line has said as much since it was created. The two articles mentioned most are already too large per WP:SIZESPLIT (Criticism: 135k, Reliability: 170k), and the topic wouldn't fit naturally in any of the three cleanly. That so many voters mention those articles is evidence that this content has value (somewhere) within the encyclopedia.
 * "POVFORK": The first version of this page is entirely new and written from scratch based on my search of academic literature. WP:POVFORK's are created "Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject} and though a couple of editors have mentioned the Criticism article, I have never been involved in editing of it and certainly never part of any disagreement there. POVFORK also says its "best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing" and that "most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content". Since I've never edited those other articles, there can not have been any disruption and no dodging of consensus. In this case, the fresh content simply didn't fit within any of other articles. Votes claiming POVFORK should be providing diffs proving I forked this from some other content dispute, and if they don't provide such evidence, they should be weighed accordingly.
 * "COATRACK": On this complaint, I feel the same way. WP:COATRACK is just essay, not a guideline, but it says "article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely". No one has explained what the "COAT" is and what the "RACK" is. The title describes the exact scope and subject matter of the topic. If this was a real COATRACK issue, then they would have proposed a more appropriate name along with that claim. None of the COATRACK voters do. Likewise, COATRACK issues can be resolved with a WP:Move request, and is not an appropriate WP:DEL-REASON.
 * Time: is a major factor here as well. AfDing a 3-day old article which has an active set of editors is short-sighted. If there are any POV concerns, they can be addressed with editing. If the content doesn't match the title, it can be edited or renamed. Gender bias on Wikipedia and Racial bias on Wikipedia both experienced a lot of the same growing pains in their early histories, as one would expect. In fact, "Racial bias" was even AfD'd and the comments are a lot like the ones here... Wikipedia would have lost a good article if we'd only judged it by its earliest version.
 * Topics of controversy with regards to Wikipedia certainly will attract a lot of discussion and disagreement at first. A lot of snap judgments are made and its hard to imagine how the article could turn out. Anyone that creates such an article will attract accusations of POV and motivation. I accept that, but accusations are nothing without proof. I hope you'll consider what I've said here. -- Netoholic @  12:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In your third point, you ask a reasonable question about what, exactly, is meant by COATRACK here. Here is my take on it. The page is sort of like a "rack" on which a variety of distantly related topics have been "hung", so as to create the misleading impression that there is a consistent pattern (bias of liberal editors against conservative ones) across multiple studies, and where that purported pattern is based upon a POV. It's not so much a problem of pagename as of the grouping of topics. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's just a rehash with no proof. There is nothing like a "consistent pattern" you describe, and even if true, such problems can be fixed via editing. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's based on an examination of the sources. And "fixing" it via editing would amount to deleting almost all of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I quote Netoholic, plus it's interesting, notable and well sourced. Even though some contents may be covered elsewhere, it does not mean that we don't need a more organic presentation from which the reader can get a more comprehensive idea of the topic. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. This is some kind of POV fork, amateur hour bullshit. "Ideological bias" is what wingnuts call NPOV every day.  This page is in any case: a) a profileration of navel-gazing, and b) a work of original research, selecting some primary sources and trying  to weave a narrative about those primary sources (this is not at all handling them with care, per policy). Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article Criticism of Wikipedia is quite a bit wider. The contents are a bit rubbish but if they weren't we'd have a lot more to worry about. The topic is notable and there's a decent amount of material so I believe we should just document what is out there on it. Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Embarrassingly poor WP:COATRACK; any viable content already has a home elsewhere as mentioned above. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will point out that the bulk of the article, "Analyses", is made up of brand new content that was never part of other pages on Wikipedia. Content from existing pages was pulled in later. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Cherry-picking information covered in other articles to give undue weight to viewpoints and the researchers involved. BLP, NOT, and POV vios that are best addressed by deletion. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep A WP:COATRACK is an article "that [...] instead focuses on another subject entirely." No, this article is about purported ideological bias on Wikipedia, like the title says. Not a WP:POVFORK; this really seems to be forked from the section at Criticism of Wikipedia, which is more like this article than it is different. To the extent this article has any major problem ... and it certainly does ... it is that it sets forth to answer matters regarding which our sources have only arguable insights, not reliable conclusions. The result is a collection of loosely-connected paragraphs summarizing sources that don't add up to an encyclopedic narrative. At any rate, I'm not sure this article is a tremendous net positive for the wiki in its present state, but I also can not agree that it is the massive policy violation the delete !voters are alleging. Vadder (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK. The academic studies cited say that it's not really a thing, yet the WP:OWNer wants to include material from creationists, birthers and cranks saying it is. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Looks like a cherry-picked set of protests about alleged Wikipedia bias, but lacking an overarching reliable secondary source to provide balance. Per JzG, academic studies that aim to provide just that conclude that there isn't really an ideological bias on Wikipedia. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is in fact much more necessary because academic studies conclude that. We don't have a place in other articles really to go into detail about Wikipedia's provable neutrality. Fringe complainers will just look weak compared to such evidence, but should be included per NPOV and completeness of coverage of the overall issue. If Wikipedia deletes an article about its OWN BIAS, that looks terrible on us. If we fail to include even laughable claims of bias, that looks bad too. -- Netoholic @  22:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Netoholic's inability to keep focused. --Tarage (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete POVFORK, COATRACK, not notable and appears to be used to support other similar questionable articles that insinuate "bias", e.g Political views of American academics.  SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Striking this today. The article appears to be in somewhat better shape now. We can always revisit deletion in the future if it doesn't pass muster with more work.  SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete As a look at its Talk page will show, I have been trying to tackle this page since its creation a couple of days ago, with virtually no success. Its creator seems unable to see that, while we all have our ideological biases, his are the ones more removed from a central position. He places an emphasis in his justifications on the existence of "scholarly" writings supporting his view. (Something he makes no attempt to remove from editing here.) On the Talk page I tried to make the point that it's only those who don't like Wikipedia's "bias" who will be bothered to write about it. Those who don't see a problem won't be writing. He didn't seem to understand this point. I found it virtually impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with the creator of the article. The Talk page simply isn't working as a vehicle for improving it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - an excuse to quote WP:FRINGE content that boils down to "they don't agree with my unorthodox and unsupported claims" complaints from reactionaries, antivaxxers, and the like. Nothing of value here that doesn't belong in reliability of Wikipedia. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete As much as I abhor the idea internally-driven of self-censorship, this article is based entirely a blatant POV fork. Though sources are cited, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information for fringe viewpoints striving to establish some semblance of balance. I will also bring up WP:PAGEDECIDE and note that the criticism levied at Wikipedia could be added to other articles, and a standalone article is not overly necessary.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to OR concerns. I don't see any RS that really discuss this subject in depth, just a hodgepodge collection of people complaining that Wiki is biased against whatever fringe or non mainstream view they hold. Valeince (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Reading the article I have to say its total nonsense. A lot of these sources don't seem reliable.   D r e a m Focus  01:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - The core of the article, that which has survived the back and forth, is actually really interesting if you read through the studies. This is an article that could be done well if done well. That it hasn't been isn't a valid deletion rationale.  G M G  talk  01:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia, content large falls within the the scope of the article Criticism of Wikipedia, and largely is written to debunk a verified POV that there is partisanship on Wikipedia. There maybe some useful resources from this article, that can be integrated into an existing article with relevant content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as obvious POV-biased coatrack. Isn;t it getting to be time to consider a ban on Netoholic? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why would you want to ban an editor simply because a group of people disagree with an article he wrote? If there is an ideological bias, this behaviour makes a good example of it! Simply wait until the end of the Afd procedure: if there is consensus, the article will be deleted (and I don't seem to see consensus now), but this has nothing to do with the reputation of its creator. Wikipedia is a cooperative project, not a place where someone owns the truth and judges others based on their views. Come on, I am sure we can be better. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Because they keep proving they're not here to write an encyclopedia? Maybe? Drmies (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, what Drmies said. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, I need some help here - I'm not seeing POV or any of the other things my trusted and respected wiki colleagues are saying...what I see is a presentation that focuses on the positive aspects of collaborative editing of all viewpoints. Perhaps there's something in the article that was/is exactly as y'all described, but I'm not seeing it.  Please point it out to me...specifically...the parts you're saying is POV.  I don't know Netoholic - haven't collaborated with him/her in the past, at least as far as my memory serves, so is the delete vote influenced because of problems with that particular editor, or is there content that the delete iVotes are objecting to? I prefer to know about the latter, and don't give a big 🐀's SMirC-ass.svg about the former. Apologies for humor gone awry. 17:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Atsme 📞📧 20:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing POV or any <-- that's.... sort of the problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Care to explain? On what article was there a dispute that created what everyone is referring to as a POVFORK? Is there confusion between the latter and a CONTENTFORK? Atsme 📞📧 15:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - essay-style rather than a coherent topic; reliable sources don't treat this as a unified phenomenon. I agree that this can be covered in criticism of Wikipedia. The forking of this content from the later article raises concerns about axe-grinding. Neutralitytalk 03:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh so it's actually about "Concerns about ideological bias". Yeah, delete. Doesn't one get tired of working at a place one is trying to undermine? Delete: essentially POV. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Failing the WP:CCPOL in such a way that removing those violations would leave nothing behind to build a new article from, as is the case here, is a perfectly valid deletion rationale. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NORESCUE. I agree with Orange Mike that it looks more like an excuse to quote WP:FRINGE content than an encyclopedia article. The irrelevance of the creator's arguments above is breathtaking: "The article is in fact much more necessary because [sic] academic studies conclude [that there is no ideological bias] ... Fringe complainers ... should be included per NPOV ... If Wikipedia deletes an article about its OWN BIAS, that looks terrible on us. If we fail to include even laughable claims of bias, that looks bad too". "Per NPOV"? Did you read WP:NPOV recently, Netoholic? For instance the WP:FALSEBALANCE part? Bishonen &#124; talk 10:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC).
 * - "Fringe" complainers, whose complaints make it into reliable secondary sources, are entirely appropriate for the article, since the article is about, broadly speaking, "analysis and criticism of the reliability of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia". I have no doubt that secondary sources of fringe complainers will note them as such and so will be reflected in the text we use in this article. If you have any specific source-by-source concerns, I am open to replying on the talk page of your choice. -- Netoholic @ 10:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I know some reliable sources that do write about fringe complainers, pointing out where their complaints (often don't) fit into the broader perspective. So yes, there is mention of them in reliable sources, but probably not the kind of mentions you want. HiLo48 (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't "want" any mentioned. "Want"ing something like that would be confirmation bias. All I "want" is to discover what's out there of relevance to write about. This article is only 4 days old. You all expect a finished masterpiece with everything already in place. That's not how Wikipedia works. I started it off I felt on a decent level. I don't see any obvious "fringe" there. Martin apparently is considered that around here, but I just was incorporating studies in the order I found them, and the journal he's in is peer-reviewed with no red flags. His is the only item from my initial draft that's been removed. -- Netoholic @ 10:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is a collection of primary sources, but secondary sources are required to write a neutral article. The title is more slogan than description. TFD (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The fork gives an undue impression that there is such a thing as an ideological bias on Wikipedia. However, with five million articles, some readers are bound to be unhappy, and bias is in the eye of the beholder. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Washington Post is not "fringe", not one sentence is a coatrack, and the title could not be less biased therefore this is not a POV fork. w umbolo   ^^^  14:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * comment: just noting the irony in the creator tagging another article with the template:Primary even as they argue to keep this primary sourced, OR POV fork. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it irony, or is it possible you have the wrong assumptions? Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP for the basis for using "primary sourced" studies - One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. Google Scholar (a citation index) gives the following citation counts for the 4 studies currently on the page: Greenstein/Zhu (2012): 59, Greenstein/Zhu (2017): 19, Jointly They Edit: 12, Wisdom of Polarized Crowds 2. There are indeed secondary sources as well. You can find them in the little bracketed numbers after each section - although it looks at least one has been removed spuriously claiming that citing him as a source is ... "endorsing"?. If you identify any you think need improved sourcing, feel free to tag them and I'll assist. -- Netoholic @  21:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, is all I will say. Just hm. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To say more here are all the sources in the page now
 * the Brian Martin paper that the creator wants to use, is a) primary, and b) not independent, since Martin is writing about his own entry in WP. Not useful for N; dubious to use at all without a secondary source that is actually independent.
 * so
 * is as primary as it gets. it reprints an emailed conversation.
 * this is a secondary source. Odd that only the the "central-left bias" part of the quote from Matei is used and not the rest of the quote. This article only has a passing mention of the notion of bias in WP and is not helpful with respect to N.
 * this is not relevant to N; only cited to describe the tool used in #4
 * this is a primary source -- the authors report their research and the results.
 * this is a secondary source about #4. Bizarrely the critical content from the secondary source is not summarized in WP.
 * this is another primary source -- the authors report their research and the results. This is published only on arxiv, so is also SPS.
 * this is another primary source -- the authors report their research and the results.
 * this summarizes #7, without comment. Not much more valuable than the primary source itself.
 * this is a secondary source commenting on #7 with further analysis. This is good. The source is ignored and not summarized, and instead quotes from the primary source are used.
 * this is another primary source -- the authors report their research and the results. This is absolutely
 * this is an SPS blog posting but is secondary with respect to #6. Not a great source.
 * is as primary as it gets. it reprints an emailed conversation.
 * this is a secondary source. Odd that only the the "central-left bias" part of the quote from Matei is used and not the rest of the quote. This article only has a passing mention of the notion of bias in WP and is not helpful with respect to N.
 * this is not relevant to N; only cited to describe the tool used in #4
 * this is a primary source -- the authors report their research and the results.
 * this is a secondary source about #4. Bizarrely the critical content from the secondary source is not summarized in WP.
 * this is another primary source -- the authors report their research and the results. This is published only on arxiv, so is also SPS.
 * this is another primary source -- the authors report their research and the results.
 * this summarizes #7, without comment. Not much more valuable than the primary source itself.
 * this is a secondary source commenting on #7 with further analysis. This is good. The source is ignored and not summarized, and instead quotes from the primary source are used.
 * this is another primary source -- the authors report their research and the results. This is absolutely
 * this is an SPS blog posting but is secondary with respect to #6. Not a great source.


 * So what we have here is 1 irrelevant source, 5 primary sources, one basically primary source (the bare summary), 1 secondary source with a passing mention, 2 OK secondary sources, and 1 weak secondary source (the last one)
 * The content is driven by the primary sources, not the secondary sources.
 * this is not a WP page that summarizes secondary sources but really a list or collection of primary sources, where the editor has added their own description of each paper, in order to try to build a narrative. The primary sources actually structure the paper -- that is how deep they go into the guts of this page.
 * This is not a WP article.
 * It is a SYN POV fork.
 * The comment to which I replied "hm" (this one) displays a clear lack of understanding of how we classify sources, much less how sources are validly used in WP.Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP a research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable even if its a "primary source". Secondly, there is no "narrative" crafted here. Each study is summarized in its own section, and there is no attempt to SYNTH together to drawn any particular overall conclusion in prose. Third, some of those sources are from EXISTING articles, copied here per WP:SPLIT/WP:SUMMARY, so the same issues you have apply to those other articles.  Lastly, and I feel this can't be said enough, but the article was created on May 22 and AfD'd May 25th. No earnest attempt was made by others to contribute additional sources, etc. to the article. The only POV/COATRACK is the motive behind this amazingly early AFD and the aspersions being cast within it. -- Netoholic @  02:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging that much of this article is simply copied from other articles adds strength to the view that this article doesn't need to exist. "No earnest attempt was made by others" to fix it because it doesn't even deserve to exist. It serves no purpose that is not already covered elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with other editors that this is a POV-fork and coat-rack, and that the topic can be adequately covered at Criticism of Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to add to my comment that, even if the topic might meet GNG (although it looks to me more like there are simply multiple unrelated sources that share only the right keywords), that means that we can keep it, but not that we must or should. Something that satisfies GNG can still be very unencyclopedic, and that's what we have here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Another point occurs to me. I was reading Articles for deletion/Intellectual Dark Web, which ended in "delete". I want to make it clear that my comment now has nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFF, but instead, the closing statement reminded me of something that I feel is relevant here. A lot of the GNG-based "keep" arguments here have overlooked the fact that much of the sourcing, although described as "studies" in the text, actually consists of opinion pieces: expressions of opinion that briefly cite some "data" to justify their arguments (with perhaps the exception of Greenstein and Zhu, where there is a single study followed by a follow-up study). But according to WP:QS and WP:RSOPINION, such sources are not sufficient to establish notability for "statements asserted as fact". Consequently, I don't think that this page does pass GNG, although as I said just above, it would be in-policy to delete it even if it did. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there are definitely some interesting and reliable sources here, and I'm not sure what the purportedly "fringe" sources are so many editors above have expressed so much concern about (perhaps the Croatian stuff that has been removed now)? In any case, the reason this article was created is irrelevant to the question of whether it should be kept. I think that most of the stuff here would belong on a (not-yet-created) page Political bias on Wikipedia, which seems more precisely defined than the current title; the topic of Wikipedia supposedly having a political bias is definitely notable. Every morning   (there's a halo...)  04:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Notable? Only to a tiny number of mostly American editors who find it difficult to accept that the big, wide world out there is not as conservative as they would like it to be. Consensus can be annoying when it doesn't support your view. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with GMG above that this is a potentially very interesting article. Some of the oppose comments seem a tad personal and hyperbolic—"breathtaking irrelevance", "virtually impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with the creator of the article", "time to consider a ban on Netoholic", "they keep proving they're not here to write an encyclopedia", "total nonsense", "embarrassingly poor". Isn't it just about whether to keep or delete the article? Harold the Sheep (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "very interesting" is not a policy-based reason to keep an article. Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I only meant that it is an interesting subject for a Wikipedia article with the potential to be improved in the usual way—revision, adding new content and sources, discussion etc. Are the assertions made in your delete vote policy-based? Harold the Sheep (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: it's preposterous to suggest that the topic ideological bias on Wikipedia has not been covered by reliable sources in depth. This topic clearly passes WP:GNG. The objections raised by the nominator have to do with WP:COATRACK/WP:POVFORK. First I will show the defects in the nominator's argument, then I will help editors understand how to move forward with the article.
 * A. Nominator writes "elements from topics we already cover." That is not a deletion argument. What the nominator is describing is WP:SUMMARY, a crucial process for building the encyclopedia. If we deleted articles which contained "elements from topics we already cover" we would have to delete millions of articles. The closing admin must disregard this subsection of the nominator's deletion statement.


 * B.The nominator is implying that while the nominal subject of the article is ideological bias on Wikipedia the de facto subject "seems to" be liberal bias and is sourced to "conservative" sources.


 * (1) We do not delete notable topics because they are not neutral. We balance the article in order to attain a neutral state.


 * (2) Our policies do not discriminate against what the nominator refers to as "conservative" sources. In fact policy says that sometimes biased sources are preferred:


 * (3) In this case merging is a poor option per WP:TOOBIG. "Reliability of Wikipedia" has almost 77,000 characters and "Criticism of Wikipedia" has almost 54,000 characters. The threshold to consider splitting is 50,000. "Wikipedia community" is not an option for merging because it already has a a child article which happens to be "Criticism of Wikipedia".
 * In conclusion, it is obvious that since "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" is a notable topic as shown by coverage in multiple RS, it should not be deleted but any POV issues should be addressed through editing.– Lionel(talk) 10:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But it is still a POV-fork and a coat-rack, and nothing in that argument refutes that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Its distinct topic with scholarly literature dealing with the issue.The articles that were cited in the nomination already too large so per WP:SIZE they should be split.--Shrike (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The way to do a split is WP:SPLIT after adding content there. This is, simply, a classic POV fork, which is invalid. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG as this topic has been covered numerous times in media since Wikipedia's inception. Merits its own article.  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 18:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep meets requirements for GNG, it's academic, and I actually agree 100% with the outline provided by Tryptofish I meant Lionelt, sorry - good job!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 19:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:POVFORK and an example of "Original Research" by synthesis. The topic can be, and indeed has been, discussed better in other articles. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:POVFORK. Carl Fredrik  talk 22:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article consists of content that should be covered in existing articles and content that should not be covered anywhere in an encyclopedia. I agree with others that it is a classic WP:POVFORK, and a bit of a WP:COATRACK as well. I do appreciate the unintended humor in this gem: "The authors identified party and ideological affiliation using "userboxes" which some Wikipedians place on their user pages.". If that is an example of what passes as scholarly research these days, then I weep for academia. - MrX 🖋 22:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: this is WP:ADVOCACY for, quoting from the lead, "Concerns about an ideological bias on Wikipedia [that] are reflected in analysis and criticism of the reliability of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia..." While the article itself discusses that such bias is unlikely to exist. The topic has been better covered elsewhere. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I do not find the WP:POVFORK arguments persuasive (in those few comments where an attempt to explain the supposed forking was even made). Of course an article like Criticism of Wikipedia may have some overlap with an article such as this - that is to be expected in a generic article like the former. This is a notable topic that has been covered in its own right by reliable sources. Attack Ramon (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, it tends to only be addressed by people who have a beef with the position Wikipedia takes on issues that concern them. People with no concerns don't write about it. Therefore coverage of the alleged issue is never going to be balanced. HiLo48 (talk)
 * This may or may not be true, but it is not an argument for deletion. Attack Ramon (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt that policy supports creation of a topic we know can never be balanced. HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Little of the keep arguments have discussed the fact that this article is a POV fork, and none have been able to refute it. Contrary to those that claim this meets GNG, the topic is just an essay featuring fringe quotes, not something even attempting to be an encyclopedic subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect - This topic is already covered in Criticism of Wikipedia, and it's likely not enough to warrant its own article, so it should be merged into that section. SemiHypercube (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, straightforward WP:POVFORK of Criticism of Wikipedia that provides nothing beyond what's already there and which seems to only serve to highlight a few extremely specific criticisms that the article's creator particularly agreed with. The massive length relative to the small number of opinions (which skew heavily towards opinion pieces) also gives the impression that this article, by its very nature, is giving WP:UNDUE weight to specific WP:FRINGE criticisms that would be better handled as one part of the larger criticism article.  Devoting a massive paragraph or section each to numerous extremely-fringe / low-quality criticisms is WP:UNDUE, and if we were to clean that up the article would be like a paragraph long with nothing worthwhile that isn't better covered in the main article. --Aquillion (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I still don't think this article is too bad, and I still think it should be kept because the topic is notable and not really fringe. However, I too feel that it looks like a collection of viewpoints that may mislead the reader. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to find sources (a review paper on a respectable academic journal?) that guarantee that the content presented in the article is complete and that the author did not perform original research work. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "guarantee that the content presented in the article is complete". I have already said several times in these discussions that the only people who write about Wikipedia's ideological bias (sic) are those who don't like what they think it is, and that clearly includes the person who created the article. That means that we are not going to find articles saying "Wikipedia's ideological bias is great!" (Unless, of course, you know of some.) All we will find are negatives. Not a good foundation for an encyclopaedic article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * By "complete" I mean what is meant in academic research when someone writes a review: the review must include all the relevant research on a topic. With this I don't mean that we should find researches that claim that "Wikipedia's ideological bias is great!" (I suppose and hope there are not!). I mean that, if the topic is controversial, there should be published research showing that the bias is statistically insignificant and research showing that it is not statistically significant, for instance. If this article does not report both points of view, then certainly is POV and should not be kept. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Geez it's frustrating discussing things here at times. I say again, for about the sixth time, in different words, nobody will be bothered to write that there is no bias in Wikipedia. It's only the whingers that will write about the topic. (NOTE: "Whinger" is an Australian word. Look it up.) If you disagree, find those articles! HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Man this is really your own point of view. Please don't generalize. Academic publishing is not blogging. As a researcher, if I find that there is no bias while I am investigating possible biases I will certainly be happy to publish my result anyway. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can generalise all I like until you (or anyone else) find that source declaring Wikipedia's bias is fine. And we both know that not all the sources used behind this article are academic ones. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete the WP:POVFORK. --bonadea contributions talk 15:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfectly valid subject. If this isn't a great article, it could be. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was just editing the Isaaq genocide article, and the title is completely made up. The date of the event is completely made up too. I don't think these were an innocent mistakes. Rather, this was ideologically motivated as a form of pro-Somaliland secessionism/nationalism. This is clear wp:synthesis. I'm planning to move the bulk of the content to "Hargeisa massacre" later, since that title can be attested. Thylacoop5 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a bizarre reason for keeping this article, it has nothing to do with the institutional boas of Wikipedia or the article itself. You found an article you think is biased, you decided this was motivated by some kind of ideology, therefore you vote to keep a problematic article on the ideological bias of Wikipedia. Weird. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:POVFORK; see Criticism of Wikipedia. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per bishonen Andrevan@ 18:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge any new/unique content into Criticism of Wikipedia, then redirect this page there. Failing that, delete it. ƒirefly  ( t · c · who? ) 19:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yeah, I know, this is going to be a POV-magnet galore. BUT, that's not a criteria for deletion, notability is, and I do think the topic is notable. I'm fine with merging the content into some related articles (not sure which one). Also, yeah, Netholic should be topic banned, for obvious reasons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To elaborate a bit, I also think the title should be changed. The reliable sources that ARE present in the article, while some of them examine bias, don't actually document much of it. I don't know, a neutral title would be something like Distribution of Wikipedia editors and articles ideological leanings but that's of course clumsy as hell.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How would you measure the "Distribution of Wikipedia editors and articles ideological leanings"? Would you find a global standard with which to compare them? HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not up to me, but up to the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And btw, yes, I do agree that the version created by Netaholic was indeed a clear cut blatant WP:POVFORK (which is why I made the offhand comment above, agreeing with others, that they should be sanctioned). But right now it looks to me like most of the problematic stuff has been cleaned up by several other editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redirect before delete. -- Cyrus noto3at bulaga <span style="color:blue; font-family:Freestyle Script, Segoe Script;">Talk to me 10:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: subject is notable but there are WP:POVFORK concerns. — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 20:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the topic is notable. The article is a legitimate expansion of  Criticism of Wikipedia because there is now a great deal of sophisticated consideration of this topic by serious journalists and by scholars.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I say again, for about the eighth time, these allegedly "serious journalists and scholars" are just the complainers. "Serious journalists and scholars" who are happy with Wikipedia won't bother writing on this topic. That means this article can NEVER be balanced. The complaints in the article are also part of a narrow US perspective. Most of the world outside the USA is much more liberal than the USA. Any writings on the matter that only mention the situation on the less than 5% of the world that is the USA are simply unreliable for a global look at Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * keep This article has good sourcing and is about a real and notable topic. Also, User:Netoholic gives some good reasons for keeping the article.desmay (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good sourcing, eh? Find me some good sources that say Wikipedia is great. That's right. They don't exist. Only the complainers write about the matter. An article like this can never be balanced. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, this article should be delete. -- Cyrus noto3at bulaga <span style="color:blue; font-family:Freestyle Script, Segoe Script;">Talk to me 02:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  03:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good find GMG. It's certainly a positive review. And I like its emphasis, with words like global, every single person on the planet, sum of all human knowledge, and World Wide Web. HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I f ail to see what your comment about finding a positive review was about. Yes it is fairly easy to find positive reviews and they should be included in an article like this. But if we found no positive reviews it would not be a reason for deleting the article. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize with due weight what is out there on notable subjects, and if we couldn't find anything good said about Wikipedia then that is what would be out there and how the article should look. Anything else would just be some editor pushing their POV. Dmcq (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't thank me; thank User:Fuzheado. He wrote it. I also happen to like Clay Shirkey's take. The bit about one of the largest cumulative acts of generosity in history is damn near poetry.   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  21:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on forcing me to say for the ninth time that a topic on which happy users don't write is not an appropriate topic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the problem of subjects which are biased because only people with an axe to grind are interested in writing about it. However if a topic has been notably covered in secondary sources like this one then Wikipedia should cover it. We are not in the business of suppressing things we don't like. And as you can see above anything that is reasonably notable will have a range of reliable sources about it rather than being completely one-sided. Anything written about to a reasonable degree in secondary sources is an appropriate topic. It may not be possible to write somethings as 'unbiased' as you like but this is not the Bowdlerized Wikipedia. See WP:NOTCENSORED Dmcq (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Does anyone else find the idea of Wikipedia deleting this article, I don't know, ironic, or something? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out above, there already exists plenty of coverage on Wikipedia of criticism of Wikipedia. We have, in fact, an entire category on the subject.  Removing this doesn't censor anything.  It was created by one editor as a weapon in their ongoing campaign of ideological POV-pushing and that shouldn't be tolerated.  The longer this goes on the longer they've succeeded in disrupting the project and getting us all to dance like marionettes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Who wrote this version has no bearing on whether the topic deserves an article. I'd like to read a neutral, well-sourced article on this topic but I think it's too early for Wikipedia. I'm not seeing enough support from secondary sources covering the whole topic. I recommend the author take on board the valid substance of many of the criticisms, modify the article accordingly, and submit it to a high quality academic journal for peer review and publication. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What kind of POV do you think is being pushed and what is being disrupted thanks? Dmcq (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The POV that all the intellectual elites are so, so mean to conservatives. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I dream of a world where "intellectual" and "elite" revert to their earlier, positive meanings. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I'm probably one of that mean intellectual elite crowd then, that sounds like social conservatism where any ideas should follow well trammelled lines. I support having any article that conforms with the policy on notable topics. Dmcq (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep since the article is about a notable topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lionelt. This is a notable topic. If the article needs to be balanced, balance it. Don't delete it. Lepricavark (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So you would be happy for it to be renamed "Wikipedia's ideological balance"? HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that what I said? Lepricavark (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I just thought it was a reasonable question. HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well. No, I would not support such a title. Lepricavark (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That tells me you prefer a non-neutral POV title for an article you think can be balanced. Interesting. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the title fits the article very well. You are free to open an RM if you so desire. Lepricavark (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly thinking of it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - plenty of better organised Wikipedia articles about criticism of Wikipedia, and this one looks like it's going to be an absolute magnet for creationists and suchlike wingnuts. Additionally, in its current form, with all the wingnuttery taken out, what do we have? A page that, in enormous detail, says that a project of interest to the English-speaking world as a whole isn't on average as right-wing as American Republicans. No, really? Pinkbeast (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article is well-sourced, is of a real topic that has been discussed in reliable sources, and that User:Netoholic has made some good points on the COATRACK and POVFORK not being good reasons to delete the article and the topic is again notable enough to have its own stand alone article. I am also sure that most articles really lack the balance though the this one isn't that bad after clearing out some content through recent contributions. I further note there is an on-going RfC: Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Pretty sure that content is important. Lorstaking (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Remaining pretty neutral on the other issues, but WP:COATRACK (which is an essay), doesn't even remotely apply.  In any case, coatracked content is a reason to trim such content out, not to delete an article.  People using this as a rationale should probably have their !votes ignored.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ignored, huh? A rationale that a coatracked page can be fixed by trimming the content out rests upon the assumption that something would remain after doing so. That is not the case here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - or incorporate in broader article. If this has been the subject of serious academic investigations, then the subject should be notable enough.  However, several of the given sources were slightly obscure; why should this be studied within the fields of economy or management?  Moreover, some concerned comparison between Wikipedia and other encyclopediae, and possibly the subject might be broadened to Ideological bias in encyclopediae or something similar.  Finally, the present article seems not to distinguish 'ideological bias' from 'left vz. right political ideology bias'.  Wikipedia policies and practise strongly favours verifiability and evidence-based knowledge, rather than e.g. knowledge purportedly based on divine revelations.  You could call this an 'ideological bias', but any effects it would have on a left-to-right political scale would be incidental. Therefore, if kept, the article probably should be rewritten. JoergenB (talk) 2:21 pm, Today (UTC−5)
 * I'm not sure what happened, but appears to have accidentally removed blocks of text when he cast the above iVote.   reverted, but when he did, he didn't replace the iVote of JoergenB, so I copy pasted it here. I have actually had some strange things going on as well - some similar to what just happened. I'm trying to find out why. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 19:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep notable subject and the title is not violating NPOV. WP:COATRACK is irrelevant here. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Although my original impression of the article was to delete for giving undue weight to highly partisan scholars, it occurred to me that there are, of course, other articles just like that from a leftist point of view. Realizing my hypocrisy, I was still concerned about the need for a stand-alone article when Criticism of Wikipedia exists, but verifiably expanding upon a topic is a valid reason for creating an article. Therefore, I believe the article should be kept, but it still needs a lot of work and expansion. Nanophosis (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.