[ExI] Wikipedia Corruption

[Lee Corbin]

BillK writes

>>  Can anyone further substantiate the charge that
>>  Wikipedia is "corrupt", or suggest links (that you
>>  endorse) that would back up this claim?
> 
> I thought everyone was familiar with the news articles over the past
> year or two about the problems with Wikipedia.

I had heard a few complaints, yes. But no, I hadn't ever
bothered to read whole articles about it. People are always
getting into political and semi-political fights over practically
nothing---turf wars, you know. Work for idle hands, you
know.

> Is this a faux-naif question?  ;)

No, and so I do indeed thank you for answering me, and giving
me some clues here. I just haven't been especially interested in
this question before this.

> A Google on 'Wikipedia admin bias censorship' gives plenty to read.
> Wikipedia itself has a good article on the subject (probably biased, though)  :)
> 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia>
> Quote:
> Notable criticisms include that its open nature makes it
> unauthoritative and unreliable,

That sentence is surely irrelevant to charges of corruption, I would think.

> that it exhibits systemic bias,

So Wikipedia itself explains (from your link above)

  <A February, 2007 study by ValueWiki.com of 901politically
  self-identified Wikipedia contributors concluded: "1. Liberal
  and "Leftist" Wikipedians are roughly proportionate to the
  US population. 2. Libertarians are overwhelmingly over-
  represented. 3. Conservative Wikipedians are dramatically
  under-represented.">

Another explanation, reputedly given by Jimmy
Wales---it also said---is that the worldwide English
speaking community is more liberal on average
than the U.S. population, which would explain
a liberal (as in the American "liberal vs. conservative")
bias.

Okay:  political bias is then *explained*.  But in the first
place, it looks pretty tame, and in the second place,
it does make sense that it would be mostly a
libertarian bias (which would fit most sensibilities
here), and thirdly what about *non-political* bias?

I suspect that people here are mostly unhappy simply 
because a few articles related to transhumanism
don't toot our horn as loudly as we would like
it tooted.  But does this really justify charges of
corruption?

Michael A. had written, after all,

> > It's just that, Wikipedia is corrupt and
> > someone with political power there
> > (don't know if Loremaster has it) can
> > do whatever they want.

Yes, you would expect this to be true of someone like
Jimmy Wales or some chum of his, given how 
most organizations throughout most of history
are.

Thanks also to you and the other posters for 
alternatives to wikipedia.

I am actually mostly interested in knowing about
how biased or corrupt most people *here* believe
it to be on non-political matters.

Are there broader charges of bias that people
*here* actually believe?  A thematic bias against
Extropian thinking, futurism, or transhuman"ism"?
If so, what is the explanation of that?  What about
this:  our general worldwide society finds our
ideas strange and perhaps even threatening.
Can't that wholly account for it?

Lee