Wikipedia Is Badly Biased
I find it strange that the writer presents Wikipedia as a well defined entity: it is possible for anyone (including the writer) to amend a Wikipedia article. This may even be done <i>anonymously</i>.<p>The writer goes on to describe various issues about various articles, which could be brought up directly in the discussion sections of these articles, as well as possible solutions for these issues.<p>However, the first few lines point out something really interesting: Wikipedia doesn&#x27;t seem to look for facts, but rather to describe point of views. If you are familiar with stackoverflow, the main policy there is to only provide factual information. Any opinion-based question or answer are at the least frowned upon, and usually rejected (though it may also depends on a sub-topic local behaviour). However, I believe that this policy wasn&#x27;t devised from the beginning, but rather refined over time, considering that the entries at the dawn of the site were much less restricted on that ground. Wikipedia seems to be much more open to opinions, in a &quot;neutral&quot; way, which they explain by giving each opinion as much coverage has it is popular (and thus accepted). So, does it mean that if the &quot;flat Earth&quot; theory (which is given as an example in the Wikipedia page) was much more popular, it would be prevalent in the article about Earth?<p>So mainstream ideas will be described in much more details than so-called alternate views. For me, this seems somewhat counter-intuitive. I would want to have an encyclopedia which compiles facts, rather than opinions. Am I missing something?