3:29. Wikipedia has definitely been taken over by woke activists.
Why would they lean left?
Academic by Nature when you take something academic minded, and Wikipedia editors are very academic minded, they're naturally going to draw from that pool of academia, which is left-leaning.
3:45. People on the right are more likely to earn their living building things, or farming, fishing, serving in police and military organizations. People on the left are more likely to be academics, reporters, lawyers, people who write for a living. That gives them an advantage competing on Wikipedia.
4:05. The real barrier is to understand all the parliamentarian maneuvering, all the rules, lawyering, all this kind of stuff that really takes years to understand it, to win a single debate about a single sentence.
4:20. In addition, Wikipedia has simply declared most conservative media generally unreliable. That means editor should not cite Fox News, The Federalist, The Daily Wire, the New York Post. By contrast, Wikipedia not only calls CNN reliable, it deems MSNBC, Vox, Slate, The Nation, and Mother Jones, reliable. If you're a leftist that's what you think.
4:47. They consider FOX in their bones to be unreliable, never to be used on a variety of important topics.
4:54. And FOX is unreliable sometimes, but so is MSNBC and CNN.
5:00. And the New York Times, and any other rated reliable website or news outlet that it's listed.
5:06. However, . . .
MSNBC, The Nation, or Mother Jones, however far left you go, it's still going to be considered generally reliable. This is also true with Al Jazeera, which is a Qatari-controlled outlet considered to be generally reliable. That gives it a higher ranking in the reliability rating than many American conservative news outlets which have proper editorial structure and accountability.
5:32. Wikipedia's bias is also revealed in their choice of subjects. After the murder of this Ukrainian refugee.
A grizzly stabbing in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Wikipedia editors wanted this article about her deleted.
An editor has nominated this article for deletion. . . . arguing that the topic, may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.
5:51. Erase this story, because this story was a story about race, about who gets to be acknowledged as a victim. This was a white woman killed, murdered by a black man, and Wikipedia very quickly tried to delete that article saying it wasn't notable.
6:06. This is just one murder.
6:08. But when you look at other instances of single crimes or crimes that end up in the news cycle, they do stay on Wikipedia and there's not an effort to delete them.
6:18. Also although the killer had been arrested 14 times.
6:22. Wikipedia wouldn't allow him to be named on the website. They said we have to protect his identity, because he's a suspect. He's not been convicted. Fair enough. The problem is when you look at another case on the right,
A 17-year-old from a neighboring state is now under arrest tonight accused of firing on demonstrators.
Kyle Rittenhouse who was a minor. They named him dozens of times.
6:45. And Rittenhouse has never been convicted.
6:48. But Wikipedia had no problem putting his name out there for the world.
6:51. And people point out the unfairness and inconsistency but nothing changes.
6:56. There is a point where public pressure and the culture actually does sway Wikipedia. Iryna Zarutska is a good example because there was an outcry about this and eventually Wikipedia did allow that article to stay, but on a whole, you're absolutely right. Nothing changes.
7:13. Another example of Wikipedia bias from the Israel-Palestine conflict. You say pro-Hamas editors push propaganda.
7:22. 40 or so editors who I call the "Gang of 40," they've made 1 million edits to 10,000 articles. [Ashley Rindsberg, Chief Investigative Officer, Neutral pov.com.] They're removing mentions of terror attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas. This is a systematic coordinated effort.
7:36. Right before the presidential election, Wikipedia created a page called "Donald Trump and fascism."
7:42. It's not if that is not an election interference, I'm not sure what is.
7:46. The Guardian, the left-wing newspaper, in the same day published the same thing, "Is Donald Trump a fascist?" September 21, 2024.
7:50. And they cited heavily a Harvard scholar who has ties to an Obama appointee but you as a user of Wikipedia will never see all this chain of sourcing. You just see the final product. They called him first a fascist,
Trump and his allies . . . have been compared to previous fascist leaders . . .
and then they sort of evolved the messaging to call him an authoritarian.
8:17. But isn't that fair?
8:19. The problem is that on Wikipedia you only get one side of it the worldview presented doesn't allow for other perspectives to be included and what you're reading about some of the most important topics of today.
8:29. If you look up Fidel Castro's successor, who repressed Cuba for years, you don't get authoritarian.
8:35. Not one mention of the term authoritarian on Raul Castro there's not one mention of the word authoritarian on the entry for Ayatollah Khomeini. At least on the leader of China's page Wikipedia some foreign diplomats consider him to be an authoritative
