Have you ever read the edit history of a page on a topic you know to be controversial in society? The constant back and forth is something to behold. And for people who think Wikipedia is just a static unchanging webpage, they’ll never realize that depending on the minute that you read an article, it could be very biased in one direction or the other versus what your grandma saw when she read it an hour ago and posted a link on facebook.
Yes. And it’s roughly what I expect it to be. And while it fluctuates, I find it pretty rare to see the most extreme biases (which I think means that they are quickly removed and averaged out). Obviously there is vandalism and you can be unlucky and see a page at the wrong time but I think it’s so much better than it one might expect. It’s basically a fantastic restaurant where you stick your head into the kitchen and see a knife fight. Yet the food on the plates is almost always impeccable.
GP: “I do not see any annoying bias or editorializing on Wikipedia. Not even on sensitive or political subjects” (emphasis theirs)
There is no unanimity being arrived at, it’s simply whomever has made the latest edit by the time a given person arrives at the page. Many people can read the “same” article and if they take it at face value, arrive at different conclusions.
I didn’t state my expectations about how WP should function. I pointed out why I think GP is wrong.
