True. Musk for example is publicly attacking it for spreading "left-wing lies" because in his wiki page there are statements like "He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including COVID-19 misinformation and promoting conspiracy theories, and affirming antisemitic, racist, and transphobic comments." which are just pure facts.
It would be nice to have something like this more decentralized.
I was perusing some recent discussions on sources with interest. It seems that Wikipedia's intelligentsia have managed to "blacklist" (deprecate or declare "generally unreliable") practically every prominent source of news in the US that is not centrist or leftist.
I kid you not; through a process of attrition they've attacked the very reliability and reputation of every source, including Fox News and the like, and they've told editors sitewide that they simply can't be cited as a "Reliable Secondary Source", like at all.
I am not sure if that is an accurate assessment of the situation on the ground for mainstream media, but it certainly exposes some real systemic bias.
And this is the highest-order and most enduring method of ingraining systemic bias in the project: by weeding out sources with unfavorable viewpoints and perspectives, saying they publish lies and untruth, and being able to prohibit them globally from any use.
And I was pondering this state of affairs and just thinking about Karoline Leavitt's press room, and wondering what will the landscape be, if there is precious little intersection between press outlets who may be favorable or deferent to the present administration, and those which are allowed to be cited on Wikipedia? Ouch!
Your point is understandable regarding source bias, but in Musk's case, the statements "they" mentioned are simply true. While you definitely have a valid point about the risks of systemic bias in excluding certain outlets, relativizing factual accuracy could inadvertently lead to a situation where every lie becomes just another "valid opinion." A viewpoint can indeed be an opinion, but misinformation remains misinformation. Wikipedia should not become a space for free interpretation of reality.
Just because one side happens to produce more misinformation doesn't mean these facts should be omitted. Consider this analogy: Stalin killed millions and was undeniably a tyrant, and even though the current Russian establishment might push a different narrative, it doesn't erase historical reality. Similarly, accurately documenting Musk's misleading statements isn't bias—it's factual reporting.
And you know, I wouldn't be surprised if people hurling those accusations somehow believe that the lies and misinformation are one-sided and partisan. As if leftism has some sort of monopoly on Truth and Goodness bestowed from above.
It's really been sickening to see the media outlets just lay down thick trails of bullshit that is designed to distract us, to instill fear, uncertainty, and doubt, to make us hate one another, to keep us hanging on that channel or that subscription for the next tidbit. It's disgusting and manipulative, and the Right has absolutely no monopoly on those tactics.
Wikipedia is simply a microcosm of the prevailing zeitgeist, so they are as likely to cure systemic bias as a leopard can change its spots.
This thread is about media organizations, but I think useful context is that in non-polarized situations conservatives and liberals are similarly likely to spread political misinformation while in polarized situations conservatives are relatively more likely to spread political misinformation [1].
