A new study by the Manhattan Institute is providing scholarly credibility to long-held conservative suspicions of bias among Wikipedia editors on entries related to current events. The study, which involves sentiment analysis of politically loaded terms in English Wikipedia content (N=175,205 sentiment annotations), reveals a mild to moderate tendency to associate right-of-center U.S. public figures with more negative sentiment compared to left-of-center public figures. This bias does not extend to U.K. MPs. Wikipedia's co-founder, Larry Sanger, has also criticized the site for ideological bias, urging people not to use it. The findings, summarized as 'Trump bad, Obama good,' have sparked discussions about Wikipedia's ideological leanings and the impact on public perception.
Tell Us Something We DON'T Know: Report Reveals Wikipedia's Left-Wing Bias Links the Right to 'Fear' https://t.co/xwigBp2VhM
'Trump bad, Obama good' - Wikipedia's bias REVEALED, and how it affects you https://t.co/lLnkh1wmbs https://t.co/DnNVBUCzny
Is Wikipedia politically biased? There is a quantifiable, mild to moderate tendency in Wikipedia articles to associate right-of-center U.S. public figures with more negative sentiment compared to left-of-center public figures. Not so for U.K. MPs though. https://t.co/wmJ5QAdfVj https://t.co/pzExUW9ff8
Is Wikipedia politically biased? There is a quantifiable mild to moderate tendency in Wikipedia articles to associate right-of-center U.S. public figures with more negative sentiment compared to left-of-center public figures. Not so for U.K. MPs though. https://t.co/wmJ5QAdfVj https://t.co/y8IYP7kJ3y
1/ Is Wikipedia politically biased? To explore this question, I averaged the sentiment (negative/neutral/positive) associated with a set of politically loaded terms used in English Wikipedia content (N=175,205 sentiment annotations). https://t.co/wmJ5QAdfVj https://t.co/i4JMrNSsIw
Wikipedia is a complete bullshit site. It glorifies establishment dogma and those who advocate it, while smearing anyone who questions western institutions. That's why its co-founder, @lsanger, has urged people not to use it due to ideological bias: https://t.co/545V6468Hl https://t.co/ujJjJTFQpz
A new study by a conservative think-tank is giving scholarly credibility to long-held conservative suspicions of bias among Wikipedia editors. | @jameslynch32 https://t.co/NrSvlrB7n0
A new study by the @ManhattanInst is giving scholarly credibility to long-held conservative suspicions of bias among Wikipedia editors on entries related to current events. Read my latest @NRO for a summary of the study: https://t.co/eJE1Yi7f7i https://t.co/mucEvvD6Z7