Wikipedia's bias against paranormal and conspiracy topics
Posted: 05 Aug 2009, 01:29I was wondering something.
When there are disputes in Wikipedia's entries, who decides who wins and what content will be in the entries? Are there levels of editors whereby higher editors overrule the lower editors? How does it work?
So for example, in paranormal topics on Wikipedia, what happens when skeptics and believers disagree on the content? Who decides who wins?
It would seem that the skeptics have far more control in Wikipedia, for the entries on every paranormal topic are almost always pro-skeptic and anti-paranormal. Each paranormal topic ends with the sentence "But mainstream scientists reject these claims" as though that were the last word.
What I've noticed is that Wikipedia only presents paranormal arguments that it feels that it can debunk with skeptical explanations. If the paranormal or unconventional arguments are irrefutable or undebunkable, then Wikipedia leaves it out completely. Definitely a bias and agenda there. That's the pattern I've noticed.
Same goes for conspiracy arguments. Wikipedia makes sure that the establishment and elite are protected, it seems. All Wikipedia articles are biased against conspiracies and claim that only government sources are true and credible, and that if the government denies any conspiracy, then it's unproven or untrue.
I wonder why.
When there are disputes in Wikipedia's entries, who decides who wins and what content will be in the entries? Are there levels of editors whereby higher editors overrule the lower editors? How does it work?
So for example, in paranormal topics on Wikipedia, what happens when skeptics and believers disagree on the content? Who decides who wins?
It would seem that the skeptics have far more control in Wikipedia, for the entries on every paranormal topic are almost always pro-skeptic and anti-paranormal. Each paranormal topic ends with the sentence "But mainstream scientists reject these claims" as though that were the last word.
What I've noticed is that Wikipedia only presents paranormal arguments that it feels that it can debunk with skeptical explanations. If the paranormal or unconventional arguments are irrefutable or undebunkable, then Wikipedia leaves it out completely. Definitely a bias and agenda there. That's the pattern I've noticed.
Same goes for conspiracy arguments. Wikipedia makes sure that the establishment and elite are protected, it seems. All Wikipedia articles are biased against conspiracies and claim that only government sources are true and credible, and that if the government denies any conspiracy, then it's unproven or untrue.
I wonder why.