Wikipedia is being lost to ideological bias.
Pray tell - from where do you get your ideologically neutral information?
I’ve routinely heard “Wikipedia is becoming ideological,” and it’s usually action flip as to whether they thinks it’s too far to the left or right.
It gets accused of that more now because of the rise of MAGA and the like.
Edit: wow, downvoted for asking this. Really, it's very simple: one should be able to make it explicit what bias they mean. If they don't, maybe they fear to show their own biases and be called out? Downvoting is the coward's way out.
Edit 2: I'm rate-limited, but I find this answer very puzzling:
> Rather, it's a recognition that it's not worth it to engage when the odds of the question being honest are slim.
That goes directly against HN guidelines. Assume the best version of a comment, not the worst. My question should be fairly straightforward to answer.
https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik...
The mention of marxism is puzzling, but re: the Middle East / Israel, I think it's impossible for any kind of written publication to report anything relatively recent on this topic that won't make anyone enraged about bias. So it seems a bit unfair to claim this is how Wikipedia is "being lost to ideology", because this is a property of the various Middle East conflicts, not of Wikipedia. Let me emphasize: nothing that could be written anywhere about the Middle East or Israel, today or in recent years, can possibly avoid enraging a large number of people all over the world.
Based on what you're saying, I think your real issue is that your own ideology and biases clash with whatever you perceive about Wikipedia. If Wikipedia had a less "marxist perspective of history" (!) or relied more on whatever you think is more reliable about the Middle East and Israel, then we'd have another commenter claiming Wikipedia is hopelessly biased in the opposite direction.
Unfortunately this boils down to "I don't like it", which is very subjective and very hard to evaluate in a neutral way that everyone agrees must mean "Wikipedia is being lost to ideology", as you claimed.
I think we all agree political and recent-ish history are mired in controversy and these divisive topics are problematic in Wikipedia, but ultimately hard to report on neutrally anyway. I guess they could settle for a insincere "neutral" tone that left everyone unsatisfied; Wikipedia supposedly tries to do that.
> The middle east articles involving Isreal use a lot of sources known to be unreliable like middleeasteye and Al-jazeera.
Good luck finding any written publication of any kind that everyone will agree is unbiased and reliable on this topic, and that won't upset a significant number of readers.
Re: specifically Middle East Eye, Wikipedia's own article on it is critical and highlights controversies. As for using it on articles about the Middle East, it would only be a problem if it was the only reference, but this doesn't seem to be the case in a cursory search I did. So aren't you effectively asking they ban some sources but left others, which ironically would introduce bias? Same with Al-jazeera or any other news outlets you dislike.
And then the admins decide what gets deleted and what is allowed to remain.
Almost anyone can edit it though they seem to have blocked Larry Sanger the co-founder for being a pain.
The question is whether it is a bias to honest citation of sources that are expected to be factual. As long as they maintain that culture they are doing the best they can.
The currently accepted 'knowledge' framework has been vigorously defended in WP since its beginning. When the label 'pseudoscience' appears in the first few paragraphs, you can usually depend on content highly critical of any threats to the orthodox (if they're even allowed mention).
Academics are more likely to defend the current paradigm. Traditionally, anomalies often go unmentioned in published papers.
All evidence for the existence of meteors was denied for centuries after Newton declared that outer space is empty - until the late 18th century, when ignoring the evidence became too burdensome.