Number of Wikipedia editors has declined by 80k over the past two years!

[rubricatedseedpod]

If anything, I'd say Wikipedia has neoliberal bias. Economically right-wing and socially "progressive" - the status quo in the imperial core.

Not that there isn't some systematic neoliberal bias, Wikipedia has acted as a perfectly good vehicle to spread propaganda for almost every imaginable worldview. China definitely has some tendrils in it. On the social end of things, we have holocaust distortion and race realism. Wikipedia is less of a pointed tool than many-limbed monster, but keep pushing your wagon, I guess, Bbb23sucks.

[RetroidHooman]

If anything, I'd say Wikipedia has neoliberal bias. Economically right-wing and socially "progressive" - the status quo in the imperial core.

Not that there isn't some systematic neoliberal bias, Wikipedia has acted as a perfectly good vehicle to spread propaganda for almost every imaginable worldview. China definitely has some tendrils in it. On the social end of things, we have holocaust distortion and race realism. Wikipedia is less of a pointed tool than many-limbed monster, but keep pushing your wagon, I guess, Bbb23sucks.

He's right that Wikipedia's current trajectory is firmly leaning in the direction of US foreign policy propaganda and Democratic party propaganda. The biases in the Holocaust article and hagiographic articles of certain figures held in positive regard by the right-wing is largely a legacy of a somewhat different period of Wikipedia history when there was more ideological diversity among editors. More recent material is increasingly aligning with neoliberal and plain old American liberal narratives and values. Obviously there is variation in this exact situation depending on which language version of Wikipedia we're dealing with, but I assume we're talking about English Wikipedia here.

[journo]

Probably doesn't help that they've seemingly banned most cellular IP space in the USA

[ericbarbour]

He's right that Wikipedia's current trajectory is firmly leaning in the direction of US foreign policy propaganda and Democratic party propaganda. The biases in the Holocaust article and hagiographic articles of certain figures held in positive regard by the right-wing is largely a legacy of a somewhat different period of Wikipedia history when there was more ideological diversity among editors. More recent material is increasingly aligning with neoliberal and plain old American liberal narratives and values.

That's correct for certain content, especially that directly relates to current US politics, the kind of articles that automatically attract editwarring. Paid editing can have an effect because certain paid editors (the ones controlling Clinton family content being a major example) are allowed to do their "business" with very little interference from the idiot admins. For areas outside that, the situation is usually more complex and difficult to summarize. Apart from content about businesses which is almost guaranteed to see COI and paid editing.

but only bias I have seen on Wikipedia/fandoms over the years is this "I'm stupid and I want to stay stupid".

That's the ticket. Nerdy garbage remains garbage generally. Any crap that an insider wants to protect remains crap forever.

Probably doesn't help that they've seemingly banned most cellular IP space in the USA

And every TOR exit node they can find, AND every VPN exit address they can find, AND every open proxy of any type. Plus IP addresses belonging to certain government agencies and schools (especially universities, which always produce a lot of vandalism and idiot-manchild editing), plus IPs belonging to large corporations. It's so bad, and so commonplace, they maintain lists of address space that are NOT to be blocked without consulting with the WMF. Yes that is correct: certain little admini-bastards have even tried to block WMF-owned addresses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _addresses

[stemoc]

well they do have a habit of "bullying" and banning users.. Maybe if they started making users who are "contributors" who actually contribute to building wikipedia as admins instead of those who bully new users (vandal fighters) then things would change... not seeing that happen anytime soon....or ever honestly...

[Ognistysztorm]

well they do have a habit of "bullying" and banning users.. Maybe if they started making users who are "contributors" who actually contribute to building wikipedia as admins instead of those who bully new users (vandal fighters) then things would change... not seeing that happen anytime soon....or ever honestly...

Things are going to move really fast now that there is an alternative that was launched just a few days ago. People are going to flock to platforms which has less community toxicity and more welcoming atmosphere for actually contributing to knowledge.

[rubricatedseedpod]

Things are going to move really fast now that there is an alternative that was launched just a few days ago. People are going to flock to platforms which has less community toxicity and more welcoming atmosphere for actually contributing to knowledge.

lol. In your dreams. There are no "flocks" to be spoken of when it comes to wiki editing in 2020s.

[account]

that's nice to hear