Jump to content

Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elon Musk's viewpoints

[edit]

@Slatersteven, Usr Trj Discussing these reverted contributions: [1][2], this is notable and weighty/due based on representation of his views in reliable sources and the prominence of Musk personally, and that notable persons and the general public have responded to him, showing his important impact on the discourse concerning the alleged ideological bias on Wikipedia.

Dodds, Io. "'He is world’s leading free speech hypocrite’: Elon Musk’s battle with Wikipedia is part of his war on truth." The Independent, 24 Jan. 2025, [3]

Rascouët-Paz, Anna. "Elon Musk Urged People to Stop Donating to Wikipedia. Here's Why." Snopes, 27 Dec. 2024, [4]

Jones, CT. "Elon Musk Offers to Also Ruin Wikipedia." Rolling Stone, 24 Oct. 2023, [5]

Hart, Benjamin. "Jimmy Wales on Why Wikipedia Is Still So Good." Intelligencer, 2 Dec. 2024, [6]

Milfeld, Becca. "Musk, Wikipedia Founder in Row Over How to Describe Nazi Salute." Barron's, [7]

Scully, Rachel. "Elon Musk Offers $1M to Wikipedia if They’ll Change Their Name." The Hill, [8] Manuductive (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really about ideological bias on Wikipedia. It's about a rich right-wing guy's random utterings. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one rich person complaining is more about that man than about Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Musk’s comments have had a significant impact on the public discourse surrounding Wikipedia, indicated by the prevalent coverage in established publications, including their criticism of his views, and the back-and-forth between Musk and notable persons like Jimmy Wales. Manuductive (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but one rich man's opinion is still one man's opinion, and not even a scholarly one. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the ravings of one uneducated rich guy are undue inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk is the owner of X, the 6th most-visited website in the world. So yes, his opinion about another of the websites in the top 10 is relevant and deserves inclusion. Now, I would like to hear an argument to remove his opinion that isn't based on personal "I don't like Elon Musk" reasons. Cambalachero (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is not an expert in Wikipedia, politics or sociology, he is just a very rich man, thus this might well fall wp:undue. Also, his dispute seems to be (at least in part) based upon how we cover him, its not ideological bias (so might fall foul of wp:mandy), in fact its hard to see with silliness like renaming has to do with anything relevant. The fact he owns a really big megaphone does not make his views relevant, what would be if they actually have an impact. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't include his opinions on COVID because he's not an expert and his opinion is neither scholarly or journalistic. GMGtalk 14:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what? He spent more money than anyone should have to buy a website. That doesn't make him an expert in anything other than acquiring assets. And, on Wikipedia, expertise is the currency - not extravagant displays of the power of wealth. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undue? In case you forgot, weight is determined by coverage by reliable sources, and Musk does have such coverage. And don't move the goalposts: if there's more to this than what the edit has written, then add or rewrite, the entry has been deleted wholesale and that's what we're discussing here. And GreenMeansGo is right: we don't include Musk's opinions of COVID. Anatomy and biology are hard sciences. A web page like Wikipedia and its stuff, on the other hand, falls in the domain of soft sciences. Newsweek, Snopes, Dallas Express and other such sources may not be reliable for talking about viruses and the human immune system, but they are reliable to talk about Wikipedia and the things noteworthy people say about it. Cambalachero (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes undue "Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source", why are his views significant, and note [[WP:VNOT] "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included". Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said it: it is significant because there are several sources that report it. Cambalachero (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS applies. This is gossip. It's a bunch of chattering about the ressentimental complaints of a billionaire who is disappointed he can't buy favorable coverage in an encyclopedia. Being in a newspaper is not a guarantee something is due inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can this be gossip? Nobody is saying anything about the private life of anyone. And it is correct that we may decide not to use a piece of information that is verifiable, but we need a reason for that; a reason stronger than "I don't like this guy". See Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. Cambalachero (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a viewpoint on this topic by a prominent individual that is WP:DUE (Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject) because this view has gotten a lot of representation in sources that happen to be on the list of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
Propose to add:

Elon Musk received prominent coverage in mainstream outlets for his claims that Wikipedia has a "woke mind virus" and that it presents imbalanced coverage of topics related to political extremism. These statements were widely criticized as representing an effort to retaliate or censor against unfavorable coverage of him on the site, and that it constitutes a "misunderstanding" of Wikipedia's decentralized editing process. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said, "I think Elon is unhappy that Wikipedia is not for sale," a reference to Musk's acquisition of Twitter.

Manuductive (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Manuductive What exactly is the price tag of due weight? How rich does a person have to be for their opinion on whatever issue they want to opine on to be automatically notable? Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Musk's statements hold significant weight in the broader discourse on this issue, not merely because of his wealth, but due to their influence and importance in shaping public debate. There is ample evidence for this:
•When Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, directly addressed Musk's comments, it highlighted the relevance of Musk’s statements in the ongoing discussion about ideological bias online. This back-and-forth shows that Musk's viewpoint is central to the conversation, not just an isolated opinion.
•Musk's viewpoints received detailed treatment in authoritative outlets like The Independent, Intelligencer, and Snopes. These sources gave thoughtful, in-depth analysis of Musk's role in the debate over Wikipedia, which indicates that Musk's stance is a significant part of the broader public conversation.
•Regardless of the size of his bank account, Musk has an influential professional role in the realm of internet technology, corporate responsibility, and public policy. His disruptive and innovative leadership in trailblazing internet companies like X.com, SpaceX (the provider of Starlink), PayPal and OpenAI, give his words authority. Like it or not, his viewpoints do matter to millions of people, impacting the public discourse on these topics, which means that his viewpoint is due. Manuductive (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So is it a billion dollars then? Because all you've really said above is that the rich guy should be heard because he has a megaphone. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If by "megaphone" you mean authoritative journalists writing down what he says and critiquing it in their prestigious newspapers, the celebrity founder of this actual website ingesting and critiquing his statements, and millions of people are transfixed with his ideas because of the revolutionary breakthroughs he has dreamed up and had the guts to implement, then sure, yeah. Respectfully, I think it speaks to the core of the issue when a good faith Wikipedia editor can read all that and think that it reduces neatly down to a number on a financial statement. Manuductive (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This bit of fannishness is not a policy-based argument for due weight. It's just you waving around your POV. I think we're done here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already accept the consensus to exclude my contribution. I only replied because you pinged me directly with a shallow and irrelevant red herring argument that Musk's notability on discussions about ideological bias boils down to his riches. Manuductive (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of here with a firm, no to inclusion. lets not wp:bludgeon the process. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose inclusion - One guy's opinion who has nothing to do with encyclopedias. The fact that he is absurdly rich does not make his opinion more accurate or useful. He has opinions on everything. We shouldn't include them in other articles either unless they relate to his work. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inclusion I've said my piece above. The proposed paragraph is WP:UNDUE on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also oppose, regardless of the merit or the author. It's an encyclopedic article, not press clipping. Tytire (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Musk tweeted some stuff. Some people wrote about it. It's by no means a significant portion of the coverage of either Musk or bias on Wikipedia. He's hardly the first person to go on a tantrum because he doesn't like how they're covered as a pubic figure. It's a dime-a-dozen and a dozen-a-day. It can be included eventually if it proves to be of any lasting significance. GMGtalk 21:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Musk has no relevant background to make his opinion on Wikipedia any more important than mine or anyone else's. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The purpose of the page isn't to indiscriminately list every criticism of Wikipedia made by any prominent individual. We should focus on high-quality sourcing (preferably academic coverage); broad strands of opinion are worth covering, especially when they're reflected in that high-quality sourcing, but we don't cover it by filling the page with a bunch of quotes from people with no relevant expertise all saying the same thing. Truthfully the entire Claims in the media about Wikipedia's ideological bias should probably be removed and rewritten - the article should cover strands of opinion, with weight appropriate to the weight each strand is given in high-quality WP:RSes; it shouldn't be a random dumping ground for every individual article or pull quote. --Aquillion (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the coverage needs to be woven together into a cohesive narrative, not left in its current form with these separate subsections for the different persons who have weighed in on it. Manuductive (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be in (invited by the bot) From a Wikipedia standpoint, due to being covered by a wide range of sources due to being widely known. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it should be woven into a cohesive narrative with due weight applied to the various viewpoints. Manuductive (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the source cited for that statement, nor the article as a whole, support the idea that there is such a mainstream consensus, so I've taken it out. We cite papers in the article that describe it as having a left-wing bias, a right-wing bias, and ones that say that it isn't particularly biased at all. In fact, the paper that was specifically cited said that we had different biases in different areas - but in any case it doesn't survey other papers on that aspect, so it's not usable as a source to say that there's an academic consensus. And the body of our article doesn't support it, so we can't state it in the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Looking over the history, it looks like this statement was added to the lead with more cautious wording and an unsuitable source; this was then replaced with a source that looked credible at first glance but which doesn't support the statement in question. In any case it should never have been added to the lead due to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, since it doesn't accurately summarize the article - even if we reworded it to more accurately specify what Greenstein et. all said, it would still be undue to single out their conclusions and not eg. Faris (who describes the site as center-right) or Krebs, Kalla, or numerous other papers listed in the article who describe no clear bias in either direction. --Aquillion (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&oldid=1282020491"