How to get bias into a Wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ravpapa/Tilt

by _0vzt • 13 years ago

230 111 13 years ago

en.wikipedia.org

tantalor• 13 years ago

Are these biases made on both side of the edit war? Some of these articles seem to have pro-Israel bias and others anti-Israel.

lifthrasiir• 13 years ago

I think it is irrelevant which side is making a bias into Wikipedia (everyone has a bias and the author of the essay is no exception). What is important is that such bias is made into Wikipedia and we need to be aware of, or careful about them. I guess proponents of alternatives to Wikipedia have something to say about them.

wereHamster• 13 years ago

What are the alternatives to Wikipedia?

GabrielF00• 13 years ago

I've been following and editing articles in this topic area for about 10 years. Not only are there factions of editors representing both sides of the issue, but there have been generations of editors who have passed through these articles.

thaumasiotes3• 13 years ago

this is at best a sub-point of the main article, but it's one that I find particularly chilling: if you want people to believe something, the easiest way to accomplish that is to lie to them. From the article:

""" It is important to know, though, that in the battle over reliable sources anything goes - lying, trickery, the basest chicanery. Jaakobou complained that Peace Now - a group devoted to researching the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank - had made up a citation from a government report on the West Bank settlement of Mitzpe Ha'ai that appeared on the group's website. "I went ahead and checked their claim that an official report requested by the Prime Minister stated something on Mitzpe Ha'ai. The Mitzpe was not mentioned in the original," he wrote in the discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard. When someone pointed out the section and page where the settlement was mentioned, he claimed that the mention did not include the specific information that was included in the article. When the original passage was quoted in its entirety, he still didn't give up; he claimed that the addition of a satellite photo of the settlement on the web page made the citation unreliable ("citing the content to Peace Now is problematic, since they add their own words and images to wiki-reliable information").

The point is: never give up. If you don't win this time, maybe you will win next time. """

adaml_6232• 13 years ago

It does seem familiar. Almost as though the news recently may have featured a government somewhere somehow lying being called on the lie and then repeating this cycle a few times. </sarcasm>

I hope that these types of tricks start getting taught in schools so that young people learn to recognise them at an earlier age. More important than analysing Moby Dick.

RougeFemme• 13 years ago

I think similar types of tricks are taught in many U.S. school systems, but only as they apply to commercials. It would be great if critical thinking skills, in general, were taught. Schools would have to walk a fine line, though. Just as others pointed out bias in this article, parents and other "interested parties" would point out bias in the school's teaching - articles chosen for critical analysis, results of the analysis, the teacher's (perceived) bias. These battles are constantly fought at the textbook level: historical interpetation, too much/not enough multi-culturalism, evolution vs. creationism. ..

Besides, what you describe can't really be tested on a standardized, fill-in-the-bubble test. And to the extent that it can, there would be endless arguments about the correct answer.

Great suggestion, but hard to implement pragmatically.

judk11• 13 years ago

It is very hard to determine if you are saying that Jaaakobou is dishonest, or of his opponents are. (It seems to switch at the end when the photos are mentioned.)

Which I suppose is all part of the fun of political debate...

thaumasiotes3• 13 years ago

If you care, read the article! ;)

The article makes it clear that Jaakobou is dishonest (which is a different concept from Jaakobou actually being dishonest, but if the part I quoted is true, I'm satisfied that he is). In the original there is formatting that was stripped out by my copy-paste into a hacker news comment. Finally, as I parse it, the text "citing the content to Peace Now is problematic [...]" is a statement that the article attributes to Jaakobou, not a claim by the author.

adamnemecek3• 13 years ago

Somehow I can't shake off the feeling that this article itself has bias. So meta.

Xylakant2• 13 years ago

It certainly does and it never claims otherwise. However, even though it shows examples that are biased mostly to one side it points out and describes the techniques used to create the bias, so you're free to use the knowledge gained to help yourself recognize the other sides attempts at creating a bias.

adamnemecek3• 13 years ago

What I meant is that it points out biased articles in a way that itself is biased. To be more specific, it seems to have a pretty strong pro-Israeli bias.

camus2• 13 years ago

Every article in the world is biased. Wikipedia is of course,but what is interesting in Wikipedia is not the articles themself, it is the discussions and debates.

Let's not even talk about TV, TV pure is evil. Internet is at least what we make of it. TV is a propaguanda machine that shapes and controls the world.

ajuc• 13 years ago

TV is read-only wikipedia with hidden discussion pages and anonymous admins paid by politicians.

halfninety• 13 years ago

You are talking about bias in the "article level". There could possibly be a "topic-level" bias in the article, that is, if one side is currently winning the edit war, and the author (belonging to the other side) tries to spoil that by exposing the tricks used by his opponents. Heck, he could even be trying to conceal his "topic-level" bias by intentionally displaying "article-level" bias in the opposite direction.

Disclaimer: I'm only talking about a possibility. I'm not familiar with this topic. And BTW, I'd say this article is fine if it only has "article-level" bias.

mathattack• 13 years ago

Of course. I wonder if he'll (or is it bias to say he?) follow her own advice.

Rules of etiquette

Much has already been written on the subject of wikietiquette, and behaviors that are considered disruptive. As a propagandist, your only concern in this area should be not to get topic-banned. Remember that your objective is not to convince anyone of the rightness of your way. This is an impossible task and therefore a waste of time. Opposing editors will never be convinced by your arguments, and the best you can hope for is to get them neutralized by goading them into a gross violation of civility, about which you can then complain at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. But even this is unlikely and risky, as the other players on the article talk page are probably just as savvy as you. Editing styles of propagandists range from feigned extreme politeness (Jaakobou) to sarcasm and baiting (Supreme Deliciousness). This is largely a matter of personal preference, and really makes no difference to the end result.

There are, however, two principles that you should follow.

Don't budge

Compromise is for wimps. You have a message to deliver; don't let others force you into compromise.

Don't give up

If at first you don't prevail, you may decide to step out of the fray for a while. But always come back. Wikipedia editors come and go, but your cause is eternal. Follow Jaakobou's example: He was losing the battle for his biased lead at Gideon Levy, so he stepped out of the talk page before consensus could be reached. Without him (but with others more compromising), agreement was reached on the text of the article. Nine months later, Jaakobou returned and tried to reintroduce the same lead that had been rejected. When I said that there was a consensus on the wording of the article, Jaakobou protested that he was not part of that consensus and had never agreed with the wording of the lead as it stood. He was absolutely right - he ducked out at just the right moment, thus preserving his right to return and fight again. and again. and again...

Tloewald2• 13 years ago

Yes but the point of view of the bias is very interesting -- I'm guessing it's from a liberal/left-leaning Israeli, i.e. someone who is caught in the middle of two warring factions who take no prisoners.

ars• 13 years ago

For a long while now I've thought that some articles should simply stop trying to be perfectly neutral.

Just have two sections in the article: Each clearly biased in a different direction (maybe use colors and do it per paragraph).

Historically newspapers used to do that, each paper was clearly biased a certain way and you knew that when reading it.

Insist on accuracy of course, but the slant in the way something is written can matter a lot even if completely accurate.

adaml_6232• 13 years ago

Yeah but each side will still try to edit the opposing sides point of view to ruin it.

highace• 13 years ago

Or they'll try and one-up each other, creating exaggeration.

jeltz• 13 years ago

This is an excellent way to create false dilemmas. Often there are not two points of view but a multitude.

jrochkind13• 13 years ago

Talking about Israel/Palestine in particular, a book of history was actually published based on that approach:

http://www.amazon.com/Side-Parallel-Histories-Israel-Palesti...

It is an interesting idea. You may find that book interesting.

Tloewald2• 13 years ago

The problem with this idea is that the truth lies somewhere in between two distorted extremes. (There's a similar problem with Common Law.) This is one of Chomsky's central points in Manufacturing Consent -- the two parties can argue over -- for example -- Obamacare, when in fact a clear majority of the US population would rather see something like the Canadian healthcare system which is both "more extreme" and off to the side of the "debate".

cturner• 13 years ago

You could pivot this into a dating start-up: help people bond with others who share their prejudices.

judk11• 13 years ago

Indeed. If an article is an edit war, just split it into two articles or sections "Criticism" "Interpretation B". Admins put the hammer on editors who destroy instead of produce". Repeat as needed. We have the technology.

mogrim7• 13 years ago

What's also interesting is the bias that appears when the same topic is covered in different languages. Take the English and Spanish articles about the Battle of Vitoria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vitoria

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Vitoria

You don't need to be able to speak Spanish - just check out the list of the battle commanders. (And if you do speak Spanish, you can see how the description of the battle differs quite radically too...)

I'm not sure what the solution to this and the main article's problem is, though, other than vigilance.

Hermel• 13 years ago

I'm not sure what the solution to this and the main article's problem is, though, other than vigilance.

Generally, it helps to not rely on a single point of information. The more sources and viewpoins you consider, the more accurate the picture becomes. Even reading very biased sources can help you get a clearer picture when you intersect their information with a source from the "other" side. Also, as long as you speak only one language, you will miss out a lot as the media copy from each other and there often is bias in the language itself. For example, consider how different the meaning of "liberal" has become in English and German, even though it meant the same originally. Or consider the fact that Germans tend to use faecal terms to curse while in English, sexual terms are more common. This can subtly influence the way we think about things. Generally, the easier it is to express a viewpoint in a language, the more prevalent that viewpoint becomes. For example, before the term "political correctness" was added to the English language, it was much harder to comlain about it.

I diverted a little from the original point. Considering multiple sources in multiple languages helps a lot.

eru• 13 years ago

Often you don't even need to change languages.

If you only read German, Swiss newspapers offer an interesting change in point of view.

mogrim7• 13 years ago

Or consider the fact that Germans tend to use faecal terms to curse while in English, sexual terms are more common.

Bullshit.

(But I fully agree with the rest of what you say).

jkscm• 13 years ago

Why would you consider this bias? Every country has its own viewpoint on history. The details of the American war for Independence are hardly interesting for every other country.

Spanish historians know more about spanish battle commanders.

mogrim7• 13 years ago

Why would you consider this bias?

Because it quite patently is. The English language article about the battle makes little mention of any Spanish contribution, and portrays it as basically Wellington and the British vs. the French; the Spanish article highlights the Spanish contribution, almost describing the battle as a Spanish victory with some help from the other allied forces. My gut feeling is that the English language article is more reliable - it includes a numerical breakdown of the allied army which (if correct) shows the relative unimportance of the Spanish contribution, the map of the battle shows the commanders were all British, etc. But of course, I'm English, and I bring my own bias to the table...

judk11• 13 years ago

Wikipedia has language versions, not national versions.

DanBC4• 13 years ago

I'm not sure what the solution to this and the main article's problem is, though, other than vigilance.

People with a mission to tell The Truth have a lot more patience and determination than a bunch of regular wikipedia editors.

Burn out happens a lot, and part of the reason is the constant bickering around every single edit to an article for years. Some edits are inconsequential, but poke the wikipedians making or defending those edits as biased and you're helping your biases stay. Goad and provoke those wikipedians and you get to disrupt ANI pages as well. (Luckily, most WP editors realise the hot button topics and tread carefully; leaving us with megabytes of meta discussion over -, --, --- etc.)

I guess WP could employ a small core of people to edit the articles, using a carefully crafted selection of sources; and to deal with propagandists. They'd be trained to use troll-defeating tactics and conflict resolution.

pantalaimon• 13 years ago

People with a mission to tell The Truth have a lot more patience and determination

The Truth™ is usually biased. I'm not sure if that's what you wanted to express with your comment, but it's exactly those people who want to get out the(ir) truth who have the most patience and determination.

judk11• 13 years ago

I guess WP could employ a small core of people to edit the articles, using a carefully crafted selection of sources;

I hope it is apparent that that approach wouldn't work and is antithetical to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.

mproud• 13 years ago

Don’t feed the trolls.

alan_cx2• 13 years ago

At the risk of doing so.....

Are you suggesting that having a different opinion is trolling?

DanBC4• 13 years ago

Climate change denialists or homeopaths or intelligent design proponents are not trolls, but the effect is pretty much the same.

You can generate megabytes of meta discussion by sticking to a fringe viewpoint and exploiting the weird wiki culture. At that point it doesn't matter if you sincerely believe the nonsense or if you're just doing it for shits and giggles.

Shivetya• 13 years ago

politics, Middle East, and environment, are three areas I only go to Wikipedia for dates of occurrence and names of those involved. All the rest related I assume is biased.

Need to look up a song and artist, anime character, or what years a car was available, I am pretty much going to trust what I read there, not so with much else anymore.

berntb2• 13 years ago

That is a bit too harsh. But at a minimum -- check the references on those subjects.

glenra2• 13 years ago

You also need to look at the discussion page to (a) see what points of view are being deliberately excluded by the biased editors, (b) find references to data on the other side.

(At least you need to do that on climate/environment - I've never looked into middle east)

acqq9• 13 years ago

My favorite example of bias introduced to Wikipedia is by some obviously religious fanatics that managed to add the big section of "Religious views" to biographies of most of famous people of science, and then misinterpret their quotes to support the view that all were religious, in a sense of "supporting/believing in the existing religions."

The best example, Einstein:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_religious_vie...

"Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized." And there's no citation re "pantheistic." That is, as stated the claim appears to support the view that there were Einstein's words that mention the "pantheistic" as the most important thing of "Spinoza's" God.

If fact, the only quote, of course not cited in Wikipedia, where Einstein explicitly mentions "pantheism" is apparently:

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza.html

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist."

The only fair description would be "he was an agnostic" and that's all. Instead, the "pantheism" is effectively promoted before, making "agnosticism" his second choice, which it wasn't. Specifically, he quotes Spinoza in order to point to the previous thinker that rejected the belief that the soul exists separately from the body. That's why he mentions him (as seen in the full quote linked above).

He was frequently quoted to declare himself agnostic, whereas he mentions Spinoza's God only in one mail.

Still, try to remove obviously lying "pantheistic" pseudo quote/promotion from Wikipedia's texts about Einstein.

And the same thing is repeated for a lot of other scientists!

saljam• 13 years ago

I find Neil deGrasse Tyson's case is particularly amusing, where he himself corrected it multiple times only to find it changed back to "atheist" (from "agnostic").

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos around 1:31.

dthunt2• 13 years ago

I find the labeling of people very frustrating.

People often have very good reasons to pick the labels they do, but those reasons are often fairly nuanced. The only way to respect that nuance is to honor the label. And you don't even have to be Neil deGrasse Tyson to run into relabelling.

Whether that relabeling is done by a Pew poll that labels you as a religious person because you attended a single religious service one year because you were curious about an unknown slice of culture, or by a friend trying to soften your image by labeling you as something they think is less offensive, it's infuriating.

I can't imagine how frustrating this has to be for someone who actually has the burden of having a voice that people are interested in hearing; when someone reduces a careful and intimate response to a fairly personal question to not only a single word, but the wrong word.

It makes me sick.

acqq9• 13 years ago

At the moment it's much worse: the opening statement about his view in Wikipedia is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Tyson#Views

"Tyson has argued that the concept of intelligent design thwarts the advance of scientific knowledge."

Which as far as I see he didn't say in that specific form and which can even be interpreted by ID followers as "so he said that ID is stronger than scientific knowledge" (using the meaning 2 of thwart: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thwart "To oppose and defeat the efforts, plans, or ambitions of").

Try to change that to his message that "ID is stupid" which would be less manipulative recapitulation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc

With false first presentations of Einstein as "a pantheist" and Tyson as somebody who appears to acknowledge the strength of "ID"(!) at this moment religious fanatics obviously succeeded in their manipulative influence to Wikipedia articles.

dkarl• 13 years ago

To be fair, in that video he rejects the label purely on pragmatic grounds, because he doesn't have "the time, the energy" to deal with the "baggage" associated with it. His explanation of why he is not an atheist consists almost entirely of a description of the social stigma and unpleasant stereotypes associated with the word "atheist." It makes sense that people would challenge his self-labeling when he explains it in terms of a desire to avoid social bother.

pbhjpbhj5• 13 years ago

It seems pertinent to note here that the opposite is true also. Many of the greatest [Western] scientist of history have been religious and/or believers in God and often have had religious support.

Galileo, Huygens, Liebniz, Kepler and Newton are the first few that spring to mind. It used to be that (some at least, I didn't do a survey) of the biography boxes included "religion" as a characteristic.

For these named at least their religious beliefs were an active and important element of their lives and places their work in perspective.

Personally I find it lacking wrt NPOV to not include that information in the biography box.

---

In response to your specifics re Einstein the cited wikipedia page includes (and included on 18 Sept the quote you claim to be missing (at least a form of it):

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.[19]" //

I don't think it does justice to Einstein's beliefs to say "'he was an agnostic' and that's all". For example the statement - though I've not looked at the wider context - that:

"[...] Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it [...] is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity" Einstein "Ideas and Opinions" (1954), NY, Bonanza Books [via Wikipedia]

seems quite contrary to Bertrand Russell's position of whom it could equally be said 'he was an agnostic and that's all'.

acqq9• 13 years ago

So you are misinterpreting Einstein by modifying his sentences, the actual quote is from 1934 and together with the parts you omitted is:

"If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity."

Wikipedia at least didn't omit the parts that you do -- you omitted "If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and" and "of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching" -- so you're more malicious in this occasion, intentionally omitting Einstein words which are important the parts of the whole sentence.

Completely different context. Try to purge the teaching of both from the later additions -- almost nothing would remain -- the earliest written records of Christianity are Paul's writings, and he was a main priest. The Gospels are even later written, obviously by priests too. The rest of the Bible is even later, everything written by priest. Of course, once the humanity would accept such a purge (to drop everything written by priests) it would result in much higher level of global consciousnesses and therefore curing of social ills.

And again the "Spinoza God" quote is published 1930, his 1954 response is clear "I do not believe in a personal God." and "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." That are his words in 1954 written by him directly, he died in 1955.

V-2• 13 years ago

Hasbara strikes again? :)

berntb2• 13 years ago

Not Pallywood, then? :-)

contingencies• 13 years ago

Politics on Wikipedia is terrible. IMHO there are certainly organized covert groups (commercial and military) who are editing it on behalf of governments (and corporations) already. Basically it's a war of attrition, and those with resources win. It's very sad, looking at the spirit that Wikipedia emerged from.

In short, as Einstein said: Nationalism is an infantile disease; the measles of mankind. IMHO the OP needs to grow up and broaden their perspective. By distributing such rants (s)he is attracting interest in the deliberate abuse of Wikipedia for partisan goals, which is not in its spirit. It's not something to be proud of.

glenra2• 13 years ago

IMHO there are certainly organized covert groups (commercial and military) who are editing it on behalf of governments (and corporations) already.

Yep. Though in your list of groups/causes you forgot "environmental". For example, there's the saga of William M. Connolley, described in part here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/...

fetbaffe• 13 years ago

Sometimes I feel that I don't spend my time on earth in an optimal way. Then I read about people living their life by doing editing wars over a salad(!). Life is not that bad actually when I think about it.

antocv• 13 years ago

Step 1, add a talk page about "How to add bias into Wikipedia" discussing bias from a very pro-Israeli point of view.

Seed distrust, misinformation and be obvious that this article is biased, make no attempt to hide it, this blatant display will despite the reader knowing about it, build trust in the article and writer. Its magnificent. Use this trust to point out the negative sides of the Arabs in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Step back and watch as the readers take your/the Israeli side, as the trust built from exposing bias is still valid as previously mentioned. Go Israel. There is no Israel lobby in USA, but there is an Arab one. Its called an Israeli salad not Arab salad. And so on...

jrochkind13• 13 years ago

In the OP, the first example he used was of 'pro-palestinian propagandists', which made me think like you, but as I read more, most of his examples are actually of misdeeds by 'pro-Israel' propagandists.

I suspect he's actually partial to the Palestinian side, actually, although he tried to use examples from both partisan sides to paint a general picture of propaganda on wikipedia.

(Disclosure: I personally believe that Israeli policies and practices toward Palestinians constitute apartheid.)

eitland• 13 years ago

Thanks, this might be a perfect example.

GP is not the only one in this thread to have this opinion.

Now that this has been brought to light, can everyone who was about to comment please take your own biases up for review?

Being on the "right" side doesn't mean you can skip careful reading and critical thought, does it?

dthunt2• 13 years ago

I ran into my first experience with this sort of thing while looking into Mormon initiation rites on wikipedia. I certainly understand why Mormons may be interested in keeping initiation secrets off of wikipedia, but wikipedia has no interest in censoring that information. And yet, at least the last time I checked, I had a very hard time finding that in part because of the mess of articles I ran across and the reshuffling of articles.

Is there an easy way to search for deleted articles and read the discussion history for them?

HPLovecraft• 13 years ago

http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

vezzy-fnord• 13 years ago

Honestly, the whole "neutral point of view", despite being a universal Wikipedia rule, is most prominent in the English one.

If you go read some of the Balkan Wikipedias, you'll have blatant nationalist propaganda and completely contradictory viewpoints. What one wiki will decry as chauvinism, another calls national identity. Most blatant is the propaganda in the Macedonian Wikipedia.

innino• 13 years ago

In a way it's quite terrifying to consider the possibilities of bias in Wikipedia. After all, if you're not an expert on a particular subject, how are you to know that even an article which seems neutral in content and tone isn't subtly selecting for and emphasising a certain portrayal of its subject? Tricky stuff.

judk11• 13 years ago

s/wikipedia/any media/

cgore• 13 years ago

And this is why trying to keep to some mythical "Neutral Point of View" is impossible.

thaumasiotes3• 13 years ago

After all, if you're not an expert on a particular subject, how are you to know that even an article which seems neutral in content and tone isn't subtly selecting for and emphasising a certain portrayal of its subject?

I need to echo my sibling commenters. You can't know that. You can't know that because it is; there's no other way for text to be.

MattGrommes• 13 years ago

This is great. I'm honestly going to go over this with my 11 year old to complement the section of her Language Arts class on the media and advertising. Lots of great things to learn to watch out for in the news and general media, not just in Wikipedia.

How to get bias into a Wikipedia article

Related Stories