WIKIPEDIA & ITS BIASES - A CIRCUMFERENTIAL ESSAY

m01827
Sep 27
5 min read

Exploring Wikipedia's Bias: The Tension Between Neutrality and Human Nature.

Is Wikipedia biased?

Of course. I’ll start with the definition of ‘bias’ by Wikipedia…:

“Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is inaccurate, closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned.”

I was inclined to enter into the topic by a recent article in the N.Y. Post titled: “Wikipedia bias influences how ones perception of reality is perceived.”

A disclaimer: I was so far, a charitable contributor to the Wikimedia Foundation that is the not for profit organization owning Wikipedia. Thus, I realized some questions about the organization over time.

So. I s Wikipedia biased?

The answer to Wikipedia biases question isn't a simple "yes" or "no." The core tension of Wikipedia is a battle between a neutral ideal and the messy reality of human nature.

Below is a tabulation of some evidence, gathered from policies, historical controversies, academic studies, and internal community discussions.

The Wikipedia Bias & Accuracy Ledger

Wikipedia is Never Biased (The Ideal & The Mechanisms)	Wikipedia is Sometimes Biased (The Reality & The Challenges)	The Pursuit of Accuracy ("Wikipedia is Always Right?")
Core Policy: Neutral Point of View (NPOV)	Systemic Demographic Bias	Self-Correction is Extremely Rapid
The foundational principle. NPOV mandates that articles must represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the Significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It's not about finding a middle ground; it's about describing the full spectrum of sourced views and giving them due weight. For example, on the topic of the Earth's shape, the scientific consensus is given overwhelming weight, while the flat-Earth view is presented as a fringe belief, which is a correct application of NPOV.	Studies consistently show the editor base is overwhelmingly male (around 85-90%), white, and from North America and Europe. This "systemic bias" results in predictable outcomes: • Coverage Gaps: Far more detailed articles on topics of interest to this demographic (e.g., military history, video games) than on topics like feminist art, African literature, or traditional crafts. • Subtle Framing: Biographies of women are more likely to mention their marital status or family than biographies of men.	A famous 2005 study by the journal Nature found that Wikipedia's accuracy on scientific articles was "surprisingly good" and approached the level of like the Encyclopædia Britannica. While errors existed in both, Wikipedia's power was in its ability to fix them. Vandalism and simple factual errors on popular pages are often corrected within minutes, sometimes seconds, by automated bots (like ClueBot NG) and vigilant human editors.
Policy: Verifiability, not Truth	Coverage Bias & Notability Standards	The Power of Citations
This is a crucial, often misunderstood, policy. Editors are forbidden from adding their own opinions or original research. Every substantive claim must be attributable to a published, reliable source. This acts as a powerful brake on individual bias. An editor cannot simply write "Politician X is corrupt." They must write, "The New York Times reported that Politician X was under investigation for corruption," and provide a citation. The bias is thus shifted from the editor to the source, which can then be evaluated.	The "notability" guidelines (what merits an article) often favor subjects well-covered in Western, English-language media. A groundbreaking scientist from a non-Western country whose work was published in non-English journals may fail the notability test, while a minor reality TV star with numerous articles in English-language tabloids gets a lengthy page. This isn't malicious bias; it's a structural bias baked into sourcing requirements.	The requirement for citations means an interested reader can always check the sources for themselves. This transparency is a key part of the "accuracy" model. A statement in a traditional encyclopedia must be taken on faith; a statement on Wikipedia can be traced back to its origin. This makes it a fantastic starting point for research, if not the endpoint.
Mechanism: Talk Pages & Consensus Building	Conflict of Interest (COI) & Paid Editing	Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) Scrutiny
Every article has a "Talk" page, a forum for editors to debate content, sources, and wording. Contentious edits are often discussed at length. The goal is to reach a consensus based on policy, not to win a vote. This process forces editors with opposing biases to find a neutral way to present information that all can agree on, or at least accept.	Despite policies against it, undisclosed paid editing is a persistent problem. PR firms, corporations, and political campaigns have been caught "scrubbing" articles of negative information or inserting promotional content. This is a direct injection of extreme bias. Wikipedia has volunteer groups and policies to combat this, but it's an ongoing battle against well-funded actors.	Following the 2005 John Seigenthaler controversy (where a user falsely implicated him in the Kennedy assassinations), Wikipedia instituted extremely strict sourcing standards for information about living people. Un- or poorly-sourced contentious material in a BLP article is subject to immediate removal. This makes articles on living people some of the most scrutinized on the site.
Mechanism: Transparency & Edit History	Ideological Edit Wars	Errors are Inevitable, but Not Permanent
Every single change made to an article is publicly logged and attributable to a user (or an IP address). Anyone can view the entire history of a page, see who added what information, and when. This radical transparency creates accountability and makes it difficult for a single biased viewpoint to take hold secretly.	On highly contentious topics (e.g., Israel-Palestine conflict, U.S. politics, GMOs), articles can become battlegrounds. Groups of ideologically-motivated editors may try to "own" an article, systematically removing information that contradicts their worldview and emphasizing information that supports it. This leads to biased "forks" of in article or long-term stalemates where the page reflects the view of the more persistent editing faction, not a true neutral point of view.	No encyclopedia is perfect. The key difference is the speed of correction. A factual error printed in a book in 2020 will still be there in 2025. A factual error on a high-traffic Wikipedia page is unlikely to survive a day. However, errors on obscure, low-traffic pages can and do persist for years. Therefore, "accuracy" is highly variable depending on the article's popularity.

Now then, I return from the review journey with this impression:

1. Is Wikipedia Never Biased? The answer is false.

Wikipedia is written by biased persons. The writers/authors/scribes use sources that are themselves biased, and are subject to the systemic biases of the society the sources emerge from. The very structure of what is considered "notable", worthy of inclusion as an entry, or in the text, is a form of bias.

2. Is Wikipedia Sometimes Biased?

This is demonstrably true. Wikipedia is sometimes biased. The evidence of demographic, coverage, and conflict-of-interest bias is overwhelming and acknowledged by the Wikimedia Foundation itself, which works to combat it through initiatives like edit-a-thons focused on underrepresented topics.

3. Is Wikipedia "Always Right"?

This is false. Wikipedia is not a source of ultimate truth, and it contains errors. However, its model is built for the pursuit of accuracy. Its strength is not infallibility but correctability. The open model, of transparency, the dedication of its self-administered community, create a system trying to detect falsehoods and vandalism that sometimes fail.

Concluding questions:

Back to my opening disclaimer being a financial donor to Wikimedia Foundation, I wonder If my name, and the many other donor names deserve mention as an entry somewhere in Wikipedia.

Moreover, who decides what is item in Wikipedia is “notable”? And what is not notable for Wikipedia? Who decides or appoints the “notability decision officers” on Wikipedia?

Omission by Wikipedia is a form of bias in and by itself.

Like in many other human conversations the louder speakers get noticed.