[AnthonyMouse]

> For instance, I have no idea whether or not Brazil has a universal healthcare system, so if the article was about a company in Brazil, such a note would be relevant to me.

The problem with this theory isn't just that it's much more widely known internationally that the US has a private insurance system, it's that that is already implied by the rest of the sentence. US employees getting their healthcare coverage from their employer means that they're not getting it from the government. Specifically calling it out is to make a political point.

> As for this specific article about the Big Three, the statement in question was added by user GoldDragon[1], who was banned for 'sock-puppetry' in 2011 and, by their edit history, appears to have hailed from Ontario, Canada.

This is proving my case. You don't need sock puppets if your modus operandi is to make neutral edits.

And being from Canada doesn't imply non-partisanship -- "the US should have a universal healthcare system" is a common political opinion in Canada.

[seabass-labrax]

> it's that that is already implied by the rest of the sentence

But is it? Here in the UK, we have the National Health Service with completely free treatment except for some combinations of basic services and higher personal income levels. Yet, most employers for higher-up jobs provide part or even full private healthcare. A quick search on a jobs board shows some examples:

Train driver at Great Western Railways:

  ...all GWR colleagues enjoy a range of benefits including... [a] company-sponsored health care plan...

Software developer at Motorola*:

  ...Also, to reward your hard work you’ll get... Private medical care...

Senior accountant at a firm in Teddington, salary £50k-£65k:

  ...Benefits... Private medical insurance...

Are these employers offering this because the NHS isn't good enough at keeping their employees healthy? Because they want to make a political point against state-funded welfare? Because it's a status symbol? I don't know, but again, they are offering (a supposedly better version of) a vital service that people already have provided by the country. So to continue the earlier analogy of Brazil, if my ignorant self read that a Brazilian company provided private health insurance, I wouldn't be able to tell whether this was a 'nice extra to have' on top of state support like it is here, or an absolutely vital service like in the USA.

> This is proving my case. You don't need sock puppets if your modus operandi is to make neutral edits.

I agree with you here. If it wasn't clear, I wasn't trying to defend user 'GoldDragon' or those like them. It's a biased statement by its wording, but the facts are all there and accurate. I think I like that aspect of Wikipedia - yes, there is editorial bias, but it can only exist around the fringes of the facts; conjecture is strictly banned. In my experience, plenty of newspapers indulge in conjecture as well as editorial bias; being primary sources doesn't fully redeem them for this.

* this one is unintentionally hilarious, as they also promise company-funded 'life assurance'. If only :)

[AnthonyMouse]

> So to continue the earlier analogy of Brazil, if my ignorant self read that a Brazilian company provided private health insurance, I wouldn't be able to tell whether this was a 'nice extra to have' on top of state support like it is here, or an absolutely vital service like in the USA.

Only you can:

> "GM, for instance, at one time picked up the entire cost of funding health insurance premiums of its employees, their survivors and GM retirees"

Implies the employees et al are paying part or all of the premiums themselves in the alternative.

> "private health insurance"

Implies they get public health insurance in the alternative.

> It's a biased statement by its wording, but the facts are all there and accurate. I think I like that aspect of Wikipedia - yes, there is editorial bias, but it can only exist around the fringes of the facts; conjecture is strictly banned.

Selection bias is all you need to control the world though.

> In my experience, plenty of newspapers indulge in conjecture as well as editorial bias; being primary sources doesn't fully redeem them for this.

Newspapers are notoriously biased. See Yellow Journalism etc. It's the same practice and the same problem -- a lie of omission is a type of lie, not a type of honesty. They'd like to lie, but don't want to get caught in a lie or sued for libel, so they lead you down the garden path.

"Technically Correct: The Best Kind of Correct." Because that's how you get away with something. But getting away with something isn't neutrality, it's the system having a bias in your favor.