In some areas, yes. In other areas, no. The wikipedia is free for anyone to edit - and, as a result some people may introduce biases or prejudices into the articles that they edit.
However, there is a series of checks and counterbalances which prevent this for the most part. Unfortunately, many of those who control those rigidly follow a politically correct construct that is biased itself.
Although, due to the wikipedia's large American user-base, the wikipedia does exhibit an incredibly large bias towards America, Americanisation, American views of other cultures/governments/etc., American English (as opposed to English, or English English as referred to in America), American Culture, etc.
For example, American celebrities or specialists may get entered into the wikipedia far more easily than celebrities and specialists of other nationalities - and a short time after the Swine Flu epidemic broke out, the wikipedia page for the 2009 outbreak listed almost every suspected case in America, whereas the Cases in Mexico, which numbered in it's hundreds (and later thousands) and is where the epidemic started, received nothing more than a a couple of lines.
In spite of Wikipedia's policy called "Neutral Point of View", most of the independent editors of Wikipedia articles prefer to concentrate only on the policy of "Verifiability", which states that the "...threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth-whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published..."
In other words, their priority is that statements made in articles be published; whether they are actually factual information is secondary.
Their pages have been as truthful and more up-to-date as any journal published.
WikiAnswers is not a biased site, it doesn't favor the right or left. Nor does Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's information on 9/11 is like what you would find in an encyclopedia except it is more current. Contact that site to voice your concerns.
They try very hard to be neutral, but since anyone can add information, some of it does end up being biased.
Critics of Wikipedia have noted (in an article on Wikipedia!) that Wikipedia may be susceptible to biased or untrue editing, since most articles are open to editing by everyone. They also state that Wikipedia may display a systemic bias.
you can not people can be biased and not biased
I think that question was biased! It almost made me think you were biased! It should be obvious my answer is biased! Sometimes I think that I.Q. test questions are biased!
Science is not biased.
Hi, Wikipedia does no advertise itself because it is for information, and the company would not like to turn the encyclopaedia into an advertising page; also, if it accepted advertisements from another company, answers involving the advertised company may be biased due to this. I hope this helps!
On Wikipedia, anyone can give you an answer. It can aslo be biased information. Encylopedias are actual info given by scientist and infonologists. So the answer you get on Wikipedia could not be true.
A biased sample is a sample that is not random. A biased sample will skew the research because the sample does not represent the population.
A biased sample is a sample that is not random. A biased sample will skew the research because the sample does not represent the population.
Biased- prejudice Unbiased- fair or impartial
Businessman is biased. Professional or executive is bias free.Foreman is biased. Supervisor is bias free.Girl Friday is biased. Clerk is bias free.Newsman is biased. Journalist is bias free.Stewardess is biased. Flight attendant is bias free.
The judges are biased in their opinion on who won the medal.
No, biased statements are not supported by evidence.