User:Top5a

hi~ (　・ω・)ノ――――@゜

On the Nucleus of Bias on Wikipedia: A Brief Treatise

Top5a -- March 20, 2023

In my estimation, the core obstacle to WP:NPOV is the blanket application of context-naïve WP:RS, especially concerning WP:RSP and WP:DEPS. In this manner, neutrality is undermined via allowing bias enforcement by an opaque system and class of arbiters, obfuscated in a layer removed from users merely reading (or machines merely ingesting) an article itself, and following references therein (or by consulting the talk page).

I proffer that WP:V cannot function in a balanced manner, when some sources are near-blanket-approved with the coveted WP:GREL, whilst others are branded as WP:DEPS. Cultural biases extant within WP:GREL (and biases against WP:DEPS) are thusly reflected in articles by masquerading under the guise of WP:NPOV. On enwiki, this problem is further exacerbated when covering international topics in which no approved sources in English are available. To paraphrase, source popularity constitutes neither certainty nor validity.

As an exercise to the reader, note the amount of hand-waiving and WP:SNOW present within RfCs on WP:RSP and WP:DEPS. Additionally, tally the amount of editors contributing to said RfCs. Mere handfuls of editors blanket approving or denying sources across all of enwiki illustrates a nexus of inherently dangerous, pervasive, and concentrated bias applied at-large. Once enshrined, editors then apply automated tooling to remove WP:DEPS en masse and without context, citing the most recent RfCs as justification[sic]. Similarly, editors are free without abandon to further engage in wanton WP:POVPUSH, citing the now favorably consecrated WP:RSP status of their sources.

While the onus is upon editors and readers to be cognizant of the aforementioned WP:RS hazards, nonetheless I maintain that WP:WEIGHT is more unbalanced under the doctrine of context-naïve WP:RS, than under context-aware WP:NPOV attempts at balance within an article itself (or relevant article talk page). Machines utilizing enwiki for data-ingestion and/or training purposes are especially susceptible to directly assimilating this form of source biasing, as the penetralia of WP:RS are oft-disjointed from any one particular article.

I find ironic that WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:BIASED exist as subsections within WP:RS, yet remain antipodal to the practice of strictly applying lists such as WP:GREL and WP:DEPS. In short, users (both human and mechanical) of enwiki are subjected to a pernicious form of socio-political-cultural WP:CITOGEN. More formally, a context-naïve arbitration of Hegelian moments poisons the dialectic, sublating a flawed synthesis. ▇