Would you consider Wikipedia to be liberally leaning, conservatively leaning, or un-biased? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Nothing is really un-biased. What I find in wikipedia is that they tend to give both sides of something that can have liberal and conservative view points. That's not really unbiased. They just let both sides have their say.

Answer 2

I highly doubt it has any overall bias. The people who come and view the articles are from all walks of life and political ideologies. They all slowly edit it bit by bit, and the extremes cancel each other out and it turns into a neutral article.

Even if an article or two does have a conservative or liberal leaning, then it is probably very slight if nobody has noticed it but yourself. When something is biased, people are going to point it out and nominate it for deletion in the Talk pages. Then other members will discuss it and decide what is fair.

Answer 3

Biased?

I've never read a biased Wiki article. At least, not as far as I can tell, and I'm biased in enugh aspects to be able to tell whether I super-strongly agree or disagree.

But, then again, I never looked up political or current event articles in Wikipedia.

I only look up things like Koalas or odd religions or other things which I first of all don't care about much (In case the info is false), and I secondly might really not notice some biases (Perhaps the white koalas get more face time than the black ones).

Answer 4

Wikipedia is considered to be as good as renowned professionally crafted encyclopedias. I have not noticed a strong bias toward any ideology. On the other hand, if something is written objectively, with critical thinking, then it usually irritates creationists, religious fundamentalists and believers of other types.
Wikipedia is ‘biased’ to views of those who write it, i.e. to people with knowledge, at least some knowledge. Consider more general question: Do scientists tend to be liberal or conservative? You know the answer: scientific experience does not go well with speculations about ‘creation’ or with right wing ideology.

Answer 5

I think it is liberally learning...but not suitable for reports (lecturers often don't accept references from Wikipedia, even if the information is correct). I'd say it is biased though - as contributers need not support their input with credible sources, so theoretically they could write anything. However due to the multiplicity of internet goers that take it seriously (bless their conscientious souls), Wikipedia is an entity that seems to be self regulating and self correcting.

Answer 6

i personally think wikipedia isn't a good source to use for reports or anything like that. only because people can go in there and edit the stuff and put false information for people to read. but i think its mostly right. and i think its un-biased.

Answer 7

I think it's mostly correct but contains a lot of misinformation and incomplete information. It's slightly biased toward liberal because most contributions are by "younger, slightly tech oriented" people who tend to get their "news" from liberal sources or even non-reliable sources such as just hearsay on the web.

Answer 8

its actually open warfare, so somearticles are one way or some are the otehr way...depends on the article. but in general, right leaning, theres a cabal of right wingers who have admin priveledges and only cyde weys to stand up to them all.

Fred Bauder, Inshanne, Tony Sidaways, and probably others
are patently point of view warriors with right leaning povs.

Answer 9

unbiased. if you think anything is biased, you can report it and it will be neutral asap.

wikipedia is a great source for info because even tho people may put wrong info there, someone is always there to make it right.

Answer 10

I think it's pretty liberal. I mean, come on! They have Da Rulz for fairies from Fairly Odd Parents. How crazy is that?