Back in May, we told you about Wikipedia and its Orwellian editing of the article on the 'Appeal to Heaven' flag after the media decided this flag was a symbol of insurrection.

So it's no surprise Wikipedia has a Left-wing bias, but here's a report confirming it:

NEW - Report uncovers Wikipedia's leftist political bias links right-wing figures to "fear, anger, disgust," left-wing to "joy," and may indoctrinate AI trained on its articles.https://t.co/eU4X112jrd

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) June 21, 2024

More from The Manhattan Institute:

In general, we find that Wikipedia articles tend to associate right-of-center public figures with somewhat more negative sentiment than left-of-center public figures; this trend can be seen in mentions of U.S. presidents, Supreme Court justices, congressmembers, state governors, leaders of Western countries, and prominent U.S.-based journalists and media organizations. We also find prevailing associations of negative emotions (e.g., anger and disgust) with right-leaning public figures and positive emotions (e.g., joy) with left-leaning public figures. In some categories of terms, such as the names of U.K. MPs and U.S.-based think tanks, we find no evidence of a difference in sentiment.

Our results suggest that Wikipedia is not living up to its stated neutral–point–of–view policy. This is concerning because we find evidence of some of Wikipedia’s prevailing sentiment associations for politically aligned public figures also popping up in OpenAI’s language models, which suggests that the political bias that we identify on the site may be percolating into widely used AI systems.

Recommended

Advertisement

This is a problem.

we already knew that tho

— Freckled Liberty 🔥 (@FreckledLiberty) June 21, 2024

Of course we did.

They have so much left-wing bias that they should change their name to Wokipedia. pic.twitter.com/CbJX83YQE7

— Planet Of Memes (@PlanetOfMemes) June 21, 2024

Yes, it should be.

Of course former Wikipedia chief says truth is relative https://t.co/27q5DFwcBO

— 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋 (@DeepBlueCrypto) June 21, 2024

It's not, but of course they belive this.

As sure as the sun comes up the morning…Wikipedia is biased….always will be.

— The Investigative Examiners (@TruthorConseq12) June 21, 2024

Always will be.

Who’s shocked?

— MAGA Set (@MAGA_set) June 21, 2024

Not a soul.

Because conservatives have better things to do with their time than editing wikipedia.

— Da5iD (@Veeger420) June 21, 2024

Just like we don't have time to protest at noon on Wednesday. We have jobs and responsibilities.

When i was growing up you couldn’t use Wikipedia as a reference 🤷‍♀️

— Amey W 🌺 (@ameyjhotmailco1) June 21, 2024

This writer just finished her BSN and you still can't use it in an academic paper.

Oh, so suddenly my parents' whole set of Encyclopedia Britannicas ain't looking so crazy anymore, is it????

"Let everything go digital," they said. "What could go wrong?" they said. "What's the worst thing that could happen when people no longer have access to actual facts?"🧐 https://t.co/LX3zTaxaUZ

— Dahlia West 🪐🪐🪐 (@DahliaWest13) June 21, 2024

Yeah, printed materials are probably a good way to go these days.

Well, now, isn't this just an absolute surprise. I would never have guessed. They seemed so neutral. 😒 https://t.co/7s4rc3CPkH

— Ty (@tyronne1836) June 21, 2024

We detect a hint of sarcasm here.