Some years ago, a friend of mine from the conservative side told me that he used send a monthly check to Wikipedia to support it. He explained that he supports a website that promotes left-wing biases and anti-conservative biases and suppresses conservative views.
This is a common mistake. Wikipedia was founded using open-source principles. Wikipedia was not an open-source project.
Wikipedia asserts that its articles are written from an impartial viewpoint
Wikipedia was written from a neutral viewpoint
Articles should explain and support major points of view. They should be given the right weight to their importance. We present many points of view in other areas. They should be accurate and contextualized. Citing authoritative, reliable sources is essential, especially when the topic is controversial or involves a living person.
A postmodern, confused word salad is devoid of any substantive meaning. These guidelines make it possible to alter or spin any article to mean any or all.
Wikipedia views conservative views differently from liberal ones. Wikipedia offers an opinion on abortion .
Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures if it’s done correctly. Unsafe abortions are the leading cause of maternal deaths in the developing world. [7] Although legalizing safe abortion can reduce maternal deaths,[8][9] is safer than childbirth, which is 14 times more likely in the United States to cause death. [10]
These descriptions would be rejected by abortion supporters. It is not safer for babies who are left to die, and then thrown in a medical waste container. It also repeats a lot of the talking points from Planned Parenthood.
Fact-checking articles about conservative media sources is not possible. However, articles about left-wing news sites are. This is the most silly item on the list. My article was clear to say that my report was anecdotal, not scientific. Wikipedia activists and fact-checkers acknowledged this fact.
