First of all, let me start of by saying that I am a big fan of Wikipedia, and that Im in awe of what the creator of Wikipedia has managed to achieve since its inception. In my opinion Wikipedia can only be described as an online revolution as it is able to provide accessible and easy information on just about every subject out there. It is a very helpful tool when it comes to looking up facts, and I dont think there is an equivalent online service out there that provides such extensive and high quality information on just one website.
Having said that, there are however a couple of things that really annoys the hell out of me, and that is the blatant bias that I sometime come across when Im on Wikipedia. It is particularly bad when it comes to articles (both English and Norwegian) that deal exclusively with Norway, Norwegian politicians or controversial Norwegian events. There seems to be a very one-sided way of presenting such information, and in many cases facts that are not to certain editors liking will be left out, or in more extreme cases simply deleted.
If you go onto the Wikipedia Talk Pages and challenge these editors on their highly biased behaviour, some of them will give you the most ridiculous and highly prejudiced opinion as to why they have decided to delete or leave out controversial information. In some cases they will explicitly tell you that the only reason that they have left out certain material is that they personally view the source-references as right-wing or too insignificant to merit inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
This is, believe it or not actually the case in the English language article about former Norwegian Prime minister Jens Stoltenberg. One individual wanted the article to include a reference to Stoltenbergs highly controversial views on Israel, which a lot of people in Israel perceive to be a clear case of anti-Semitism. One of the editors of the Stoltenberg article apparently disagreed and after having deleted that specific reference managed to tell the person who had included it that any information from The Jerusalem Post and articles written by one its columnists couldnt be accepted because he/she considered The Jerusalem Post to be a right-wing news source and thus unreliable.
The particular editor apparently fails to realise that encyclopaedias arent supposed to be subjected to blatant censorship just because certain information may put the subject in a less than flattering light, or because it somehow could be seen to favour certain political views.
The Wikipedia article about Jens Stoltenberg is a prime example of how blatantly biased this online encyclopaedia can be at times. In the last 6 months when rumours first started surfacing in Norway that Stoltenberg may be considered for the role as the next Secretary General of NATO, any information that the Norwegian editors of this particular article dont like (they are all Norwegians) gets deleted. Numerous reliable references and pieces of information have been left out solely because the editors dont like it.
More cynical souls might suggest that the editors were paid to whitewash the article in order not to draw any unwanted attention to certain incidents that could embarrass Stoltenberg, not that Im claiming that this is the case, but I can certainly see why some people would be inclined to hold such opinions based on the behaviour exhibited by the editors.
Ive added two links that both present reference-sourced information about Jens Stoltenberg so people can judge for themselves. Both articles are correct and they both present accurate information. The Jens Stoltenberg Wikipedia article however doesnt include the more controversial material that can be found in the other one.
In this particular case isnt the act of omitting such crucial information almost tantamount to lying? If not, it is at least very misleading and in my opinion a deliberate attempt to seriously misinform non-Norwegian Wikipedia users.
I dont know if the same thing is happening with articles about non-Norwegian political figures and political events, but it certainly raises some questions about the impartiality of Wikipedia. Is such obvious political bias something that Wikipedia wants to be associated with?
Having said that, there are however a couple of things that really annoys the hell out of me, and that is the blatant bias that I sometime come across when Im on Wikipedia. It is particularly bad when it comes to articles (both English and Norwegian) that deal exclusively with Norway, Norwegian politicians or controversial Norwegian events. There seems to be a very one-sided way of presenting such information, and in many cases facts that are not to certain editors liking will be left out, or in more extreme cases simply deleted.
If you go onto the Wikipedia Talk Pages and challenge these editors on their highly biased behaviour, some of them will give you the most ridiculous and highly prejudiced opinion as to why they have decided to delete or leave out controversial information. In some cases they will explicitly tell you that the only reason that they have left out certain material is that they personally view the source-references as right-wing or too insignificant to merit inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
This is, believe it or not actually the case in the English language article about former Norwegian Prime minister Jens Stoltenberg. One individual wanted the article to include a reference to Stoltenbergs highly controversial views on Israel, which a lot of people in Israel perceive to be a clear case of anti-Semitism. One of the editors of the Stoltenberg article apparently disagreed and after having deleted that specific reference managed to tell the person who had included it that any information from The Jerusalem Post and articles written by one its columnists couldnt be accepted because he/she considered The Jerusalem Post to be a right-wing news source and thus unreliable.
The particular editor apparently fails to realise that encyclopaedias arent supposed to be subjected to blatant censorship just because certain information may put the subject in a less than flattering light, or because it somehow could be seen to favour certain political views.
The Wikipedia article about Jens Stoltenberg is a prime example of how blatantly biased this online encyclopaedia can be at times. In the last 6 months when rumours first started surfacing in Norway that Stoltenberg may be considered for the role as the next Secretary General of NATO, any information that the Norwegian editors of this particular article dont like (they are all Norwegians) gets deleted. Numerous reliable references and pieces of information have been left out solely because the editors dont like it.
More cynical souls might suggest that the editors were paid to whitewash the article in order not to draw any unwanted attention to certain incidents that could embarrass Stoltenberg, not that Im claiming that this is the case, but I can certainly see why some people would be inclined to hold such opinions based on the behaviour exhibited by the editors.
Ive added two links that both present reference-sourced information about Jens Stoltenberg so people can judge for themselves. Both articles are correct and they both present accurate information. The Jens Stoltenberg Wikipedia article however doesnt include the more controversial material that can be found in the other one.
In this particular case isnt the act of omitting such crucial information almost tantamount to lying? If not, it is at least very misleading and in my opinion a deliberate attempt to seriously misinform non-Norwegian Wikipedia users.
I dont know if the same thing is happening with articles about non-Norwegian political figures and political events, but it certainly raises some questions about the impartiality of Wikipedia. Is such obvious political bias something that Wikipedia wants to be associated with?
