I’ve previously pointed out the way that the Wikipedia editors seek to minimize those they dislike and elevate those they support. But their left-wing bias is getting increasingly out of hand, as evidenced by their rationalizations for not permitting criticism of their favorite token black scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson:
Keep in mind, these are actual quotes from Wikipedia editors discussing why it’s okay to airbrush history in order to protect their precious prophet.
1. “Telling a funny anecdote with fudgy details to make a joke/point is not a controversy, its what public speakers do.”
2. “It doesn’t matter if we can demonstrate it happened or not, many things happen in many people lives, we don’t write each of them into every persons biography.”
3. “[W]e may have to leave this up for a few days until S Davis drops his ‘censorship’ campaign.”
4.”So, [Tyson]‘s not making a point about Bush, he’s making a point about the lost opportunity of 1.3 billion people not contributing to the advancement of human knowledge.”
5. “This is thus far a relatively insignificant story pushed by a fringe attack blog[.]“
6. “We shouldn’t be asserting that ‘No evidence exists’ based upon the current sourcing.”
7. “There are literally thousands and thousands of articles about this topic […] If this was something important, then you would see a lot more sources covering.”
8. “[I]t is a non-notable commentary that begun in an obscure media site and was picked up with even more obscure sites/blogs.”
9. “[T]his is being kept off because Wikipedia is deeply conservative in the non-political meaning of the word.”
There are a plethora of examples of this Wikileftia bias. If you look at the page, about me you’ll see that a “Feud with John Scalzi” is apparently my primary View, but you won’t see any corresponding “Feud with Vox Day” on the Scalzi page even though a) he is the one who started it back in 2005, and b) he is the one who keeps talking to various media outlets about it, thereby rendering it notable.
The worst offenders may be the champions of Sam Harris. In the criticism section, they actually offer defenses of the very criticisms made, and the most substantive critiques, such as my complete demolition of his Red State argument, which was so successful that he dropped it entirely, are not there.
Wikipedia isn’t entirely useless. But for any public figure of any political controversy at all, it is entirely misleading.