Last Updated: PREVIEW

Weather: Melbourne 11°C - 15°C . Rain then showers.

Andrew Bolt

, Friday, August, 31, 2007, (10:42am)

 

Wikipedia administrators have admitted to a senior politician that their articles are, ahem, biased.

Unfortunately, as I am sure you understand, in many cases those who are sufficiently motivated to edit these articles are those who are less interested in presenting a neutral point of view, and instead are more interested in pushing a particular agenda using Wikipedia. This can result in articles which are unduly biased towards or against their subjects. 

That’s not news to anyone who would like to compare the treatment of conservatives by Wikipedia with the cossetting of their counterparts on the Left.

Here’s an example of the problem.

Wikipedia’s entry on Foreign Minister Alexander Downer is only too keen to mock:


Paul Keating jibed that he was “the idiot son of the Establishment.” [3] Downer is also often caricatured in political cartoons wearing fishnet stockings and high heels, which he once donned for a charity event…

As Liberal leader, Downer initially attracted record levels of public support. Then aged 43, he was perceived as a fresh-faced alternative to a government in its twelfth year of power. His support base was quickly eroded, however, by a series of embarrassing public blunders, the most famous of which occurred at a formal dinner. Promoting the Liberal party slogan “The Things That Matter”, Downer then quipped that the party’s domestic violence policy would accordingly be named the “things that batter”, referring to abusive husbands. In addition, Downer suffered Keating’s parliamentary attacks, with Keating once describing Downer as “being born with a silver cutlery service in his mouth.”...

But the Wikipedia collective has so far banned any reference to Kevin Rudd’s visit to a strip club and subsequent evasions. Read that collective’s discussion on why Rudd deserves much gentler handling.

Which helps to explain why Rudd’s entry makes him seem such a saint. You’d almost think the man had written it himself.


Have Your Say

Show Oldest | Newest first    Page 1 of 2      1 2 >

If you don’t like what it says about Rudd, why not just edit the entry? I don’t see any lock on the Rudd page.

If Wikipedia is biased to the left, it just proves that lefties have more time on their hands to edit it.

Papachango (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (12:11pm)
marcoschair replied to Papachango
Fri 31 Aug 07 (03:14pm)

Joey Johns could do a wiki! We need a rudder so we can erase and forget.

tony thomas replied to Papachango
Sat 01 Sep 07 (11:35am)

There may not be a lock on the Rudd page, but there is one on the Downer page “due to vandalism”. The reference on that page to Downer wearing ‘fishnet stockings and high heels’ has been removed. I was interested in this because although Downer put his legs (only) on view in stockings in a photograph for a guess-the-legs charity competition in the mid-90s, it is now taken as fact that he also wore ‘high heels’. In my humble opinion, the ‘high heels’ are an urban myth generated because cartoonists added them. I am sure high heels to fit a male foot are hard to obtain (Barry Humphries notwithstanding) at short notice for a charity event such as a ‘guess the legs’ photograph competition. If anyone can provide evidence that Downer wore ‘high heels’, I will donate $20 to World Vision. Let’s hear it, folks!

For a great laugh try reading the Wankipedia entries for the Left’s Pet Causes.

Some of the earnestness expressed is magnificent in its contrition. LOL  LOL

Jay Santos (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (12:18pm)

Wikipedia is great for so much, but the Australian political content is horribly skewed as you say.

Go take a look at the Carmen Lawrence entry - we get one line mentioning an “Easton Petition”, but no elaboration on what it was, what the consequences were and what it meant for Lawrence’s political career. We just hear that it was tabled.  A quick glance at the discussion page for the Lawrence article will show an ongoing argument between several contributors and one “Guardian of the page” who steadfastly removes any fleshing out of the Easton Affair on who knows what grounds.  The Easton Affair doesn’t even have an entry on Wikipedia - Could you imagine if this was a senior government minister? It would be written up in 10,000 words with negative quotes from every source available on the WWW.  Similarly there’s no entry for the Electrical trade unions guy who was sacked after his tirade and gloating of bully-boy tactics (at least not last time I checked), no mention of the controversy surrounding Kevin Rudd’s wife and so on and so on.

By contrast, the Entry on Kevin Andrews: More than half this man’s entire entry is discussion about Haneef!  Haneef dominates Andrews’ bio but they can’t justify more than “In November 1992 the Easton Affair entered the public spotlight when a petition was tabled alleging that the Opposition Leader Richard Court had leaked information to a party in a divorce case. On 10 November Lawrence told Parliament that she had had no prior knowledge of the petition.” about Easton in the Carmen Lawrence Section? If anything it says more negative about COURT than Lawrence.

While you are gritting your teeth, check out the entry on the “Pacific Solution” which was one of the pages supposedly “edited by the PMs office” in the recent leftie controversy.  Quick definition of what it is followed by a list of criticisms. No support mentioned, youd think everyone hated it - no competing arguments - just rhetoric.

Mike of Vegas (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (12:18pm)
YMC replied to Mike
Fri 31 Aug 07 (02:50pm)

Even more reason to privatize the Universities - and give extra aid to the disciplines that matter: science, bioscience, mechanical engineering, medicine but not the humanities. And I speak as a former humanities student from La Trobe.

Philip Shehan replied to Mike
Fri 31 Aug 07 (03:15pm)

Mike, if you think the article on Lawrence is incomplete, don’t bitch about it, add to it.  Just make sure you have the facts right and reference if possible. That’s the idea.

Kiwi replied to Mike
Fri 31 Aug 07 (06:58pm)

Philip - I think Mike covered your point in his post where he says that mention/expansion of the “Easton Affair’ is being blocked by one of the “Guardians of the Page”. Who appoints the “guardian”?

Mike replied to Mike
Fri 31 Aug 07 (07:24pm)

(This is a reply to Philip Shehan who replied to me)

Philip, I do add to many entries on Wikipedia, in fact I am rather anal about keeping it even because I value wikipedia as a resource. Unfortunately, the guardians of selected articles are there ready to revert any changes they don’t like - as I commented with regard to the Lawrence article - It’s untouchable because one guy refuses to allow any Easton content - Go read the comments and edit history.

Stephen replied to Mike
Sat 01 Sep 07 (12:48am)

Looking at the history of the Carmen Lawrence page there’d been a fair amount of crap added in the past which seems to have been removed since, although it survived for quite a while. Just goes to show the bias isn’t always to the left… And what on earth does this have to do with universities? Most contributors, at least judging from the meetup photos, seem to be a bit older than that target demographic.

Well you see it all depends on the angle you observe Rudd what picture you get. Whether printing the uncritical embellishments of his childhood or explaining away nights at gentlemen’s clubs our newspapers alternate between canonising the man and humanising the saint. We don’t have papers reporting the news just holograms projecting illusions.

mike of cnbra (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (12:27pm)
Charles replied to mike of cnbra
Fri 31 Aug 07 (01:37pm)

I fully agree with your comment Mike.  It seems to me that there are plenty of examples of The Dear Leaders’ flaws on show, his evasiveness, tendency to lie when under pressure, not across the full story, lack of comment in respect of controversial items (e.g. muted pulp mill support),lack of definition on policy timetable and component, etc. etc.

However, these things are never reported, or, if they are, it is always in the context of making the story the story, or trying to blame John Howard for throwing mud.

I think it all points to a general failure by journalists in particular, to avoid being intellectually slothful and unable to prevent themselves from indulging in group think. Most of this I think is a function of flawed educational organisations, who are captive to particular political ideology.

Anyone can go into Wikipedia and make edits. That’s the whole point - it is supposed to reach an equilibrium point as editors discuss and negotiate their different perspectives until the general “truth” is agreed on.

So if you don’t agree with what you read there, sign up (free) and change it. Argue the toss with the other contributors and come to a consensus.

People ought to remember that wikipedia is just a website that anyone can contribute to. No serious person should consider it the font of all knowledge - it gives you the general gist of a topic, from which you can start some more serious research elsewhere. All this recent hype about it is just silly.

Or, join conservapedia.org

Richard (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (12:34pm)
Matthew replied to Richard
Fri 31 Aug 07 (01:45pm)

“Or, join conservapedia.org”

I tried.  But when I told the guy I wasn’t conservative or a christian I never heard back from them.

MattR replied to Richard
Fri 31 Aug 07 (02:49pm)

Unfortunately many pages get locked after any controversy. It just so happens that they get locked with left wing bias in tow. I wonder how THAT happened?

harlequin replied to Richard
Fri 31 Aug 07 (07:57pm)

People ought to remember that wikipedia is just a website that anyone can contribute to. No serious person should consider it the font of all knowledge
___________

Agreed. But many do. I have had arguments with many people because they believed stuff in Wikipedia that was just plain wrong. They insisted it had to be right if it was in Wikipedia.

Yes Alexander Downer’s stockinged foot is mentioned in Wikipedia but not Rudd’s strip club activites which he cant remember but which he is sure nothing wrong happened.

Peter M of Melbourne (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (12:52pm)

Thanks mate for clearing up doubts about Wikipedia. I’d suspected that if it weren’t biased, it would soon be taken over by activists who were. Seems the Trojan horse has disgorged and Wikipedia is finished—if it ever started—as a thorough, objective source. It’s now even less credible than Fairfax and the ABC. Hoo-roo Wikipedia!

Bush boy of the bush (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (12:52pm)
watty replied to Bush boy
Fri 31 Aug 07 (07:50pm)

“Wankpaedia” is now being rushed on to it’s new website so these dubious types in Labor who seem to fantasise about Downer in tights have a reference point.

As I suggested once before if the Oxford or Britannica ran their show like wankpaedia there would be outrage within acadaemia who seems to be reticent in criticising the cuurent reference provider.

Labor’s “trappings of substance” campaign strategy is proving quite effective because the media are letting them get away with it.

Political journalists appear to be conceding a Labor victory without trying to uncover who and what we will get as a government if Labor is elected.

The Australian ran a piece yesterday arguing there was next to no difference between the IR policies and suggested it was laughable to suggest Labor’s policy would impact the economy. This despite the fact that with the exception of Rudd and Garrett the entire Labor front bench have their roots in the Union movement.

It doesn’t seem to occur to journalist the single biggest difference between the Government and Labor is Union influence. Union influence will be insidious and it will be the dominant influence in shaping not IR but every conceivable aspect of our society. Activists, radicals, strident unionists and in some cases zealots don’t make for a good management team to guide the affairs of state.

It’s high time the media started taking a look behind Labor’s entire “Wikpedia profile” let alone St Kevins’.

Objective of Coffs Harbour (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (12:56pm)

Wikipedia Biased!!!!  Well I never!!!!

When did that happen?

tongue wink

J. Hansford (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (01:06pm)

When you claim that there’s no mention of rudd’s night out on wiki, you undermine your own argument when you also give us a link to the site’s several pages of discussion about it grin

All information sources have biases and omissions.  But show me one other than lets you see (and participate in) the argument about what should be included and what shouldn’t.

Wiki has all sorts of omissions and they’re not all lefty.  janet reno’s page made no mention of bobby fijnje for a long time and probably still doesn’t.  THAT’S a big omission.

Show where a link to the video of GWB’s guffawing on camera before declaring war on iraq.  I can’t find it anywhere - does that mean the internet’s biased?

Wikipedia gets criticism from all sorts of people, and I’m not convinced it’s always motivated of a heartfelt concern for completeness and accuracy.  I know a guy who despises wikipedia - but I’m not sure he’d know how to read a book even if he picked one up by accident.

I think we’re past the era when we think we can pick a source and just trust what it says.  Sensible people don’t buy that tripe any more.

Matthew of Canberra (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (01:25pm)
watty replied to Matthew
Fri 31 Aug 07 (03:41pm)

DUH?

Turbine replied to Matthew
Fri 31 Aug 07 (04:06pm)

Matthew, you are right in judging the media output in general as tripe. Sadly there are those that treat their thoughts and opinions as being gospel. They stopped reporting years ago, now sit on their backsides and poke at keyboards.
I also think that channel seven’s latest screw up just about says it all for their spirit and integrety as well.
Those morons don’t run Australia people, we bloody do.

Abu Chowdah replied to Matthew
Fri 31 Aug 07 (08:29pm)

Wikipedia gets criticism from all sorts of people, and Iâ€™m not convinced itâ€™s always motivated of a heartfelt concern for completeness and accuracy.  I know a guy who despises wikipedia - but Iâ€™m not sure heâ€™d know how to read a book even if he picked one up by accident.

Inference = we are all illiterate for criticising Wikipaedia. Thanks Matthew, though clearly an ALP apparatchik and apologist, I had expected better than this from you.

Search your soul Matt, I am your father. No, sorry, different discussion.

I meant search your soul, Matthew - you KNOW Wiki is biased simply because het up, venomous lefties have the time in the day, and the inclination, to do hatchet jobs on their enemies and hagiographies on the objects of their fervent desire. You should all cut your hair and get a job!

By jove!

Matthew replied to Matthew
Fri 31 Aug 07 (10:02pm)

“Hagiography”.  Now THAT’S a word you don’t get to use every day.

“Inference = we are all illiterate for criticising Wikipaedia. Thanks Matthew, though clearly an ALP apparatchik and apologist,”

None of the above.  You spelled all the words mostly right, so I’ll assume you’re not a smack-head.  But your suggestion that defending wiki means I’m a lefty says more than you’d like, IMHO.  grin

And don’t so be casual about linking people to the ALP.  You couldn’t be more wrong.  Or bozoid.  I dislike the AFP, hence I’ve never joined - even though I’d quite like to run the coutnr

“Search your soul Matt, I am your father”

Hey - DAD!

“venomous lefties have the time in the day, and the inclination, to do hatchet jobs on their enemies and hagiographies on the objects of their fervent desire.”

Last I checked, white trash (which is almost probably not you, I’m sure) has more than enough time on its hands.  Wiki is pretty darn good with the facts - post a fact, and some anal cretin will peg you.  Way I see it - only one group has a problem with the facts, and that’s your lot wink


The main “rule” Jimmy Wales (Wiki-God) goes on about is that everything written in Wikipedia must be done from a Neutral Point of View (NPOV).

It’s not utter anarchy.  Especially when it comes to “Biographies of Living Persons”.  They can and do remove things; they can and do lock out some edits.

Supposedly you can’t go on about Kevvie’s Excellent Adventure because you run up against BOLP and NPOV walls.  Which doesn’t explain why other Living Persons certainly have entries accepted about them which hardly adhere to the spirit of “Neutral Point of View”

The only useful thing I’ve found in Wikipedia is that you can follow the citations to “real” information available elsewhere.

Gordon of Perth (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (02:05pm)
Matthew replied to Gordon
Fri 31 Aug 07 (02:27pm)

The “only” useful thing?

Seriously.  I think wiki’s fantastic for just surfing information.  The cross-linking means I end up reading about things I’d never have thought I’d find myself interested in.  By all means take everything with a grain of salt - but I think the claims of inaccuracy are seriously overplayed (as previous comparisons with brittanica have shown), most of the information that’s really of value isn’t controversial enough to be politically skewed and the accessibility of it all is utterly tremendous.

If wiki’s ALL you read, then you have a problem.  But this concerted effort to writeit off seems like sour grapes from a section of the community that likes to believe it knows better than the unwashed masses and would like to think they can keep it that way by dismissing any source of information it sees as “too easy”.  As I posted earlier, the most anti-wiki guy I’ve personally met is also the least knowledgeable, least literate and, frankly, least interested.

If anyone still thinks they can pick a source and just trust it, then they’re a child or a bozo.  That’s the way it is.  Wikipedia’s no different.  But it’ll still be going in a decade or two and the brittanica probably won’t.

Dr Faustus replied to Gordon
Fri 31 Aug 07 (05:49pm)

If wikiâ€™s ALL you read, then you have a problem.

Spot on the money Matthew.  Wiki is an excellent resource, though as with any tool you have to apply experience and judgement to use it properly.

Objective

The Labor IR policy is full of contradictions
How does Rudd explain??(oh thats right he isnt asked to)…

... while there are millions of $ spent by the ACTU ad campaign against workchoices and “we will rip up AWA’s cos the workers are suffering from wicked bosses” their Ir policy launch saw the statement made that research showed only 5 % of workers were on AWA’s

How do the media explain??(Oh thats right they dont acept that they have to do they)..
that 90% of workers are denied flexibility while their bosses are imposed unilaterally with 20 conditions to add to overhead costs along with unfair dismisl al alws that badly impact on small business---while 10% of us can “look after ourselves” and we all know how costs getpapssed on or impact on jobs, ....yet the Left elanign syncophants in the media say tis ridiculous to say the Labor IR policy wont impact jobs or the economy?????

Jazza of Portland (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (02:23pm)
Matthew replied to Jazza
Fri 31 Aug 07 (05:08pm)

What’s that got to do with wikipedia?

i will be voting for Kevin Rudd.

Unlike how current PM he seems honest and caring.I get the sense that he actually cares about the people of Australia instead of money and being friends with incompetent presidents.

You liberal voters are quite silly in blaming Independent programs like wikipedia. I think wikipedia gives us good information and is not controlled by the government.

Really coalition supporters should bow their head in shame. They have allowed this scoundrel to get away with all his sins and lies. Shame shame

Reco of Melbourne (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (02:51pm)
Jay Santos replied to Reco
Fri 31 Aug 07 (05:06pm)

Reco you are a prime example of why compulsory voting in a democracy is travesty...although you don’t sound old enough.

“...They have allowed this scoundrel to get away with all his sins and lies...”

What you mean how his family were not turfed out of their home after his father’s death?

or…

That he can’t remember being at a strip club but called his wife the next day to say he’d been a goose?

or…

The denial about consorting with disgraced WA businessman Brian Burke?

...those lies you mean?

Yes, the quoted piece on Downer is not particularly flattering, but it is entirely correct.

Philip Shehan (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (03:12pm)

and guess what else,

you can see the discussions on why something is included or not and why it’s been changed, unlike some blogs/wiki’s around where what is published is the whim/opinion of a single person

mick maggs (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (03:16pm)

I use wikipedia all the time and I have yet to find a factual error it. But bias is rampant not just on political topics, and the bias is often by omission.

The problem is too many people can’t process information critically and ask what am I not being told here. And that goes for all information sources.

We are all biased. It’s just that some of us realize it more than others and try to deal with our biases.

Phil_B of Perth (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (03:36pm)
Matthew replied to Phil_B
Fri 31 Aug 07 (05:18pm)

“But bias is rampant not just on political topics, and the bias is often by omission.”

But it’s actually correct, otherwise?  grin

I’d sometimes like to be able to sit inside someone else’s head and see the world through their eyes.  There’s a lot of talk about rampant bias (on this blog and elsewhere) and I can only assume you’re not all just making it up.  I agree that I do see some bias in the media, but it’s not always to the left or right (seriously) and it’s usually so darn obvious that it’s of no real consequence.  So what gives?  Is bias just a chant that some people have latched onto as a way to discredit views they don’t like?  Is there really rampant bias and I’m so biased myself that I can’t see it?  Are you guys keyed in to one sort of bias but not another (coz I see both, frankly).  Or are you just reading different sources than I am?

This isn’t just idle speculation - it’s something I’d quite like to understand.  Again, I refer to my wiki-hating but generally disinterested acquaintance.  Surprise, surprise - his most common accusation about wikipedia was ... bias.  How the heck would he know!??!  That makes me suspicious.

SNIP

Bernard of Toorak (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (04:48pm)

SNIP

I think we’ll ban you after your last couple of emails. There is a very unpleasant and disturbing tone to them.

Andrew Bolt
Fri 31 Aug 07 (05:10pm)

Never mind Bernard of Toorak. He usually does that when people have opposing views to him. He is the self proclaimed ‘bias’ fighter, yet every single thing he ever writes reeks of bias. I believe he thinks anyone that has a differing opinion to his own is biased.

Paul of Hughesdale (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (05:38pm)

Hi all, that nasty ABC is at again attacking our MPs.
If it was a Liberal this blog would be full of people ranting about ABC bias. Pretty funny I reckon; pity you conservatives seem to have lost your sense of humour when it comes to anyone having a go at a Liberal.

This is taken from the ninemsn site.

“Kevin Rudd’s boozy visit to a New York strip club returned to haunt him, when a woman wearing Playboy style bunny-rabbit ears stripped in front of him in a Sydney Harbour car park.

The federal Labor leader had just wound up a news conference in a parkland area when he was targeted in an apparent prank by ABC TV’s The Chaser’s War On Everything.”

JET.

Jet of Mildura (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (07:00pm)

Does anyone find it funny that Andrew is complaining about bias in a medium that is edited, added to, and contributed to, and generally just used by anyone in the world.

So, logically, Andrew, the fact that you are making this complaint about a website used by anyone in the world effectively means that the majority of the rest of the world disagree with your own viewpoint?

And therefore who might be biaised?

Couldn’t have put it better myself.

Have a nice weekend.

Adam Rope of Newport (Reply)
Fri 31 Aug 07 (07:37pm)
Jim replied to Adam Rope
Fri 31 Aug 07 (09:45pm)

Adam,

The problem is that once you start arguing with somebody who is protecting an article, they refer the discussion on to a moderator.  Wiki moderators are socialists.  That is a fact.

It doesn’t matter that anyone can contribute, add, edit, or generally just use wikipedia.

Your logical conclusion is a joke right?

Mike replied to Adam Rope
Fri 31 Aug 07 (11:00pm)

Well you see the whole point of Wikipedia is that it isn’t about what you AGREE with, but about neutrality in its entries.

Did you even read his original post to which you are posting a comment?  Here’s the important quote:

“those who are sufficiently motivated to edit these articles are those who are less interested in presenting a neutral point of view, and instead are more interested in pushing a particular agenda using Wikipedia”

-This- is what Andrew and some of the rest of us are talking about, and don’t get me wrong - I *love* Wikipedia, but there are zealots guarding pet entries from *both* sides of politics. In the US topics (in my experience) there’s certain entries dominated by the right, but in Australia n politics the left wing uni students dominate.

It’s very easy to say people can edit it how they like, but for a good example of the problem, go take a look at the edit history for the entry on “Volountary Student Unionism” back in mid 2005 when it was a hot topic.  See how any attempt to add quotes from sources that supported VSU were religiously removed by three contributors. It was fine to have a list of bodies opposed to VSU and why, but the minute you added some opposing voices (even when fully sourced) they would be removed as “biased” within an hour or two.  Watch the drama unfold as people attempted to balance the images used on the entry. Back in those days we had a photo of a NUS protest march and a picture further down of a student carrying a picture of John Howard with a big X through him, with the slogan “Fight VSU, Fight the Liberals”.  Left-wing editors argued that putting pro-vsu images wasn’t right as it was “unrepresentative of student opinion”.  Look at old versions of the entry where the “Pro VSU” positions were always prefaced with weasel words like “some claim” and “some have argued” and then ALWAYS countered by a negative position, giving the Anti VSU people the last word. Then go look at the Anti VSU section and see how the arguments are listed as -facts- with no counter argument. There was a lot of use of the word “WILL” as in this WILL happen.

Incidentally, I have very little problem with the VSU article as it currently stands (in fact it could use one of those original pictures back), but now that it’s a totally dead issue the guardians have hitched their wagons to another hobby horse. My point is, the VSU entry now is very close to how it should be, but the VSU entry circa this time in 2005, when it mattered politically, was the bastion of Student politicians active on Wikipedia and nothing could be done about it for more than an hour or two.

The same rings true of the current issues. Go look at the entry on Australian Workplace Agreements.  Here’s a quote from an editor who had a problem with the neutrality of the article:

(quote from the discussion section on the wikipedia AWA entry follows)

“This article is not balanced. It pays lip service to the arguments in favour and gives a much more favourable and fuller account of arguments against. This is evident from the references used alone. Of the 16 references:

* 5 are to opinions and criticisms expressed by either Unions, ALP MPs or ALP Governments.
* 6 are to information that, though published by government bodies or from government sources, is consistently used (and arguably misused) by opponents of AWAs to criticise them.
* 2 are to government sources that serve as nothing more then background information.
* 2 are references to a federal court case that arguably puts AWA in a bad light.
* Only 1 is from a source in favour of AWAs.

The only reference from a source in favour is that quote basically describing what an AWA is and nothing more (not really supporting AWAs). Also, this quote is hidden in a section titled “Opposing Views".”
(end of quote)

Needless to say his views were shot down and once again, he was told to “make his own additions”. Of course, the other editors have their own idea of what the truth is, so his edits would most likely be deleted. All of this fails to address the basic tenet of Wikipedia that entries are supposed to be balanced in THE FIRST PLACE - the onus is on any given editor to make sure when they write, or change an article it is fair and neutral. It IS NOT up to people with opposing viewpoints to add them.

I’m the last to claim the left are the only people causing problems with the credibility of Wikipedia, but in terms of Australian political entries it’s a big problem. I can hardly stand to read these entries any longer and posting suggestions on the discussion pages makes me feel about as welcome as when I would post on the Student Union forums in my Uni Days.

Stephen replied to Adam Rope
Sat 01 Sep 07 (12:57am)

“Wiki moderators are socialists. That is a fact”.

That wouldn’t explain all the admins who are members of the Liberals, the Christian Right (some of whom brag about it on their user pages in full public view), the NZ Nationals or the Republicans. The right is quite well represented on Wikipedia.

Logical conclusions that don’t rely on any facts tend to be referred to as wild guesses.


Show Oldest | Newest first    Page 1 of 2      1 2 >

Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide a name, you may use a screen name – this will be published with your comment, and a working email address – not for publication, but for verification. The suburb/location field is optional.
( Read our publication guidelines ).


Submit your comments here:

   
 

How to add a link: Enter the text you wish to be clickable, select it and click the 'Link' button to enter the link details in the popup box. Maximum of 2 links.


* Required Fields

 

Insert an emoticon Insert an emoticon



 

Profile

Andrew Bolt

Andrew Bolt

Andrew writes for the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph & Advertiser and runs Australia’s most-read political blog, On week nights he hosts The Bolt Report on Sky News at 7pm (from April 25) and his Macquarie Radio show at 8pm with Steve Price.

Advertisement

Latest Articles

Article Icon - Comments
Albo denies Latham’s racism claim 0
Spend, spend, spend, spend 0
Column - Troubled Turnbull must be more like Abbott 26
Shut the town, not just the school 5
Column - Stop the race politics that Peris represents 13
Trump vs the barbarians. UPDATE: Spitting barbarians in Sydney, too 36
No bonus for David Feeney 8
Looking for Luke 3
Tips for Thursday, May 26 100
Owned Xenophon has a lend of voters 3
A bit much? 117
As Green says himself: “a sweeping gesture instead of meaningful specifics” 49
Shorten gets intimate examination 45
‘Watch this space’ 74
The NBN is a Turnbull success 108

Categories

Topic Posts Latest
Some films and TV 9 28 Jan 13
Personal stuff I'm glad I wrote 22 05 May 16
The "stolen generations" 43 19 Feb 16
The "stolen generations" - Rabbit-Proof Fence 2 16 Jan 04
Your favorite books, poems and music - and mine 29 08 Aug 15
No, I don't have a Twitter account 1 03 Aug 10
The green movement 56 30 Mar 15
Political things 19 10 Apr 16
Interviews with warmists like Flannery 8 10 Mar 14
Global warming - dud predictions 154 05 Apr 16
Religion 8 18 May 16
Media 198 12 May 16
Politics - polls 32 18 May 15
Malcolm Turnbull 14 26 May 16
Carbon tax 78 17 Jul 14
Boat people policy 241 16 May 16
Economy 51 25 Apr 16
Global warming - propaganda 186 26 Feb 16
Anti-nuclear hysterics 4 03 Apr 14
Politics - Carr 11 14 Apr 14
Politics - deceits and stuff ups 127 19 Feb 16
The new morality 70 09 Apr 15
Politics - federal 221 16 May 16
Skype affair 4 17 Mar 12
Bolt Report 23 03 Mar 13
Global warming - general 124 11 Feb 16
Islamism 65 28 Mar 16
Politics - state 15 15 Jul 13
US politics 17 17 Mar 16
The politics of race 92 26 May 16
Free speech 181 19 Apr 16
Culture wars 118 23 May 16
Podcasts 1 02 May 12
2GB podcasts 59 20 May 13
The AWU scandal 140 03 Nov 14
Which Rudd would you like? 4 17 Jul 13
How the Left hates 42 16 Sep 15
Immigration 27 23 May 16
The George Pell witch hunt 11 30 Apr 16
three 24 26 May 16

View Entries by Date

May 2016
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

Monthly Archives

Most Recent Comments

Reco says: Does anyone else find it funny that Jay santos runs around trying desperatly to defend the…
(Sat 01 Sep 07 at 02:00pm)
Mike says: Wikipedia discussion about Bolt’s article
(Sat 01 Sep 07 at 01:07pm)
Matthew says: Mike replied to Adam Rope Fri 31 Aug 07 (10:00pm) You writelike someone who’s edited a…
(Sat 01 Sep 07 at 12:49pm)
Mike says: Bolt, take a look at some of the users, follow their edits, see what they do. They’re not…
(Sat 01 Sep 07 at 01:44am)
Jim says: BOLT MODS… Just for the record, I hate the new reply thingy. Before, you could read through…
(Fri 31 Aug 07 at 11:51pm)
Adam Rope says: Does anyone find it funny that Andrew is complaining about bias in a medium that is edited,…
(Fri 31 Aug 07 at 07:37pm)
Jet says: Hi all, that nasty ABC is at again attacking our MPs. If it was a Liberal this blog would…
(Fri 31 Aug 07 at 07:00pm)

Subscribe

RSS Feed of all the latest Andrew Bolt articles ATOM Feed of all the latest Andrew Bolt articles
Subscribe to receive the latest from Andrew Bolt

Email a friend

To email this article to a friend, fill in the form below

Message:

close  x
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wikipedia_confesses_a_certain_bias/
blogs.news.com.au
crawl=CC-MAIN-2016-22
188172
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:KSQSLDJQB7K5XJBKQ4BBSOBUHZC5SLOJ
<urn:uuid:446dd989-37c4-4394-993d-252a94c28662>
2016-05-26T00:41:39Z
23.15.7.115
sha1:ATTSQI2WKRFAK7ST7QXHK5KJXMIVAMKD
<urn:uuid:6b9141ac-c630-47ce-914e-9c233d55bae9>
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wikipedia_confesses_a_certain_bias/
length
response
<urn:uuid:057bc554-4ec8-4787-b377-8d16c854729c>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-185-217-139.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-22
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf