[cmeacham98]

Wikipedia is not perfectly unbiased, but if you honestly believe it is even comparable to PragerU you should seriously talk to someone about your biases and perception of the world.

There are left-wing equivalents of PragerU (ex: the Gravel Institute) that are just as far away from Wikipedia as PragerU is.

[MichaelCollins]

The method of this study was to deliberately construct a bias on wikipedia, which the researchers were able to successfully pull off with measurable effect.

[phpisthebest]

I think it depends on the topic and section of wikipedia.

If you get into the political area's of wikipeda, I think the bias of Wikipedia is pretty clear polar to that of PragerU.

If you stick to the pure hard sciences (physics as an example) and non-controversial events (like an earthquake) then sure they are unbiased

[cmeacham98]

Can you give an example of a wikipedia page that you think shows bias on the same level as PragerU?

[hither_shores]

Browse through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_neutral_poi... and you'll find plenty.

For example:

> Mohammed Zakir (also known as Meyra) was an Ethiopian Oromo nationalist. Regarded as "legendary Oromo hero", he is noted for his high contribution to keep the lights of Oromo nationalism shining after the martyrdom of his two hero colleagues called Elemo Qiltu and Ahmad Taqi ... the Oromos would never forget this early exemplary hero. And above all, history will always remember Meyra and his heroism.

[cmeacham98]

If you go to the page in question (available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Zakir_Meyra) it has not one but two warnings at the top of the page about the content within. Is this not an example of Wikipedia's process working as intended?

[hither_shores]

There's been an NPOV warning on that page since 2011, and the content has remained substantially the same since 2010. So no, I don't think it is.

[cmeacham98]

Wikipedia runs off of community contributions. This person seems to be extremely obscure, as searching the full name 'Mohammed Zakir Meyra' I found this Wikipedia article, websites that scrape Wikipedia and post its contents, and garbage SEO-optimized websites that had nothing to do with the person. I gave up trying to find anything that wasn't SEO garbage or a Wikipedia scrape on page 5 of the search results.

At least in the English speaking world, this person seems to be a nobody and nobody seems to care enough to fix this article. Honestly, someone that knows how the process works on Wikipedia more than me should probably submit it for deletion, as this (at least in my opinion) shouldn't even meet Wikipedia's notability standards.

[chjj]

This is one of the most clear examples of bias in favor of leftism that I've seen on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_marxism

> The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that Western Marxism is the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture.

I feel like a lot of actual marxists would disagree with this statement. People like Antonio Gramsci, who basically laid the foundations for cultural marxism in the early 20th century.

Oddly, if you read about Antonio Gramsci on wikipedia, they all but call him a cultural marxist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci

> Gramsci is best known for his theory of cultural hegemony, which describes how the state and ruling capitalist class – the bourgeoisie – use cultural institutions to maintain power in capitalist societies.

Also, the last time I looked at the cultural marxism article, it simply said a "far-right conspiracy theory". Now they've somehow managed to roll up antisemitism in there too. Apparently it became antisemitic in just the past year or two!

[magicalist]

> Also, the last time I looked at the cultural marxism article, it simply said a "far-right conspiracy theory". Now they've somehow managed to roll up antisemitism in there too. Apparently it became antisemitic in just the past year or two!

It's been there as long as the article has (almost two years)[1] and was on the Frankfurt School subsection on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory for the last 3.5 years[2], so you've off by a while there.

Even before that you can read about how "blacks, students, feminist women, and homosexuals" are the vanguard but its roots are in the anti-semitic criticism of the Frankfurt school, apparently peddled at, for instance, a Holocaust denial conference 20 years ago[3]. I'm not an expert on the subject but doesn't seem recent or much of a stretch to me.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt_School&...

[3] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...

[chjj]

> It's been there as long as the article has (almost two years)[1]

Yes. This was already pointed out. I was mistaken about the antisemitic part not being there earlier.

> its roots are in the anti-semitic criticism of the Frankfurt school

I would have said its criticism is rooted in the fact that Mao rose to power through cultural subversion and is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.

> apparently peddled at, for instance, a Holocaust denial conference 20 years ago

Interesting that is brought up. To deny the existence of cultural marxism, IMO, is akin to holocaust denial.

[magicalist]

>> its roots are in the anti-semitic criticism of the Frankfurt school

> I would have said its criticism is rooted in the fact that Mao rose to power through cultural subversion and is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.

It seems like maybe you're just hung up on definitions and/or the inclusion of "cultural" here? It sounds a lot like you're just looking for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Marxism and its various offshoots.

The wikipedia article for a specific set of critiques of Marxism from a bunch of racists is not a good base article for a general/systematic critique of Marxism.

[cmeacham98]

Just because they use the term "cultural" on Anotonio Gramsci's page doesn't make him part of "continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture". Can you substantiate that claim, or is that just made up?

> Also, the last time I looked at the cultural marxism article, it simply said a "far-right conspiracy theory". Now they've somehow managed to roll up antisemitism in there too. Apparently it became antisemitic in just the past year or two!

This is the first ever revision of the article that isn't simply a redirect, and it contains the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_...

[chjj]

Antonio Gramsci asserted that the reason Marx's predictions of late-stage capitalism never came to fruition was due to cultural institutions propping up capitalism. He states very clearly that the (new) objective of marxism should be to establish a counter-hegemony within the existing cultural hegemony, thereby subverting it.

This is all present in Gramsci's prison notebooks[1] and is common knowledge to anyone who has ever studied marxist intellectual literature at any length. I find it ridiculous that wikipedia would claim this is a "conspiracy theory". Marxists speak about this _very_ candidly in their writings.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Notebooks

[cmeacham98]

This still does not provide any proof for the claim. Of course Marxists want to promote their ideology, even culturally. Nobody denies this. The claim made by people using the term "Cultural Marxism", and the reason it is a conspiracy theory, is that said Marxists do so for the purpose of destroying Western culture.

Again, to be clear: I am not asking for proof that Marxists promoted Marxism (obviously they did), but that they did so "to subvert Western culture".

[8note]

Here's a fun hour and a half analysis on a page related to Ukraine: https://youtu.be/3kaaYvauNho

[kitschyred]

> I think the bias of Wikipedia is pretty clear polar to that of PragerU

As if. This article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question is still up despite having almost zero pertinent sources.[1] Calling that "polar" is nothing short of a stretch.

At most, Wikipedia could be said to have a neo-liberal bias, an ideology upheld by both of the US' political parties, based on policies alone and not on each individual voter's personal and nuanced adherence. The parties are wrongly assumed to be polar opposites on the political spectrum by most US citizens, but they're not.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kaaYvauNho

[edgyquant]

That holodomor example isn’t a good one. That article is up for, and mostly pertains to, the debate surrounding whether or not it was technically a genocide.