[mellosouls]

Well, this whole discussion and article is about misinformation and "truth", and I'm not sure how I could add to my initial comment at the top of this thread, but - assuming you allow, as I intend - the "Ministry of Truth" is not necessarily a malevolent, intentional global entity, but rather an occasional artefact of the factors previously described by myself and others - bias, circular reasoning, gatekeeping, etc then there will always be a significant chance that it will naturally arise here and there where those influences are scaled by - say - demographic imbalances (eg. white, male, liberal, etc) in the sector in question (in this case some Wikipedia subjects; but it applies equally to real-world contexts where you might see other demographic imbalances, eg. academia, the police, army, public sector, startup culture, etc, etc).

For Wikipedia's own various discussions on the subject if you want to delve further, try:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia

Remember, none of these problems are necessarily intentional, it's just not as simple as implying Wikipedia is a special, neutral case free of those issues.

[teddyh]

An “occasional artefact of factors [like] bias, circular reasoning, gatekeeping, etc” is not even close to anything which anyone could reasonably call a “Ministry of Truth”, and it is certainly not what I was referring to.

[mellosouls]

If that artefact presents as keeping certain subjects or articles within the bias of the dominant group, it is pretty much controlling "truth" in that way. But, yes, I don't think Wikipedia has a shadowy board of Cigarette Smoking Men or anything.

But there are other entities that seem to do a reasonably good job of being impartial (e.g. BBC), I just don't buy the idea that Wikipedia is very special (or especially effective) in regard to neutrality.