Hacker News Reader

I thought it was pretty well known that Wikipedia has been gamed repeatedly over the years. From companies to individuals. Generally speaking in the LONG TERM, things get corrected. But they are definitely not perfect and their editors have bias whether intentional or not.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-fac...

It is? It seems kind of obvious to me. People who don’t care about a topic are not going to edit the page about it.

But that’s sort of how the whole thing tends to work. If a topic is niche and one sided, you’ll get your small filter bubble which doesn’t really hurt anyone. If it’s controversial, the writing will tend towards the careful middle. It’s not perfect but works as well as anything its size could.

> If it’s controversial, the writing will tend towards the careful middle.

No, it will tend towards the side of those who has the most admin rights and most time for reverts. They will have no interest in neutrality

Here is a write-up on the subject.

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/