Comment by ryandrake

My point is more that the history of those pages is a good example of how Wikipedia works for controversial topics; it's not really a process of becoming more correct as better sources are found and argued about like it is on more neutral pages, instead it's an in group deciding what to represent, collecting their preferred opinion pieces. And this changes over time, getting no closer to neutrality within the same articles history.

You can write an equivalent article starting with "Gamergate was a movement reacting to the improper collusion between game developers and journalists" and find just as many sources, but the current article wants to promote the idea that it was a harrassment campaign first.

Wiki's Gamergate opening paragraph:

> Gamergate or GamerGate (GG) was a loosely organized misogynistic online harassment campaign motivated by a right-wing backlash against feminism, diversity, and progressivism in video game culture. It was conducted using the hashtag "#Gamergate" primarily in 2014 and 2015. Gamergate targeted women in the video game industry, most notably feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian and video game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu.

Grokipedia's:

> Gamergate was a grassroots online movement that emerged in August 2014, primarily focused on exposing conflicts of interest and lack of transparency in video game journalism, initiated by a blog post detailing the romantic involvement of indie developer Zoë Quinn with journalists who covered her work without disclosure. The controversy began when Eron Gjoni, Quinn's ex-boyfriend, published "The Zoe Post," accusing her of infidelity with multiple individuals, including Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson, whose article on Quinn's game Depression Quest omitted any mention of their prior personal contact. This revelation highlighted broader patterns of undisclosed relationships and coordinated industry practices, such as private mailing lists among journalists, fueling demands for ethical reforms like mandatory disclosure policies.

I don't care about "Gamergate" and never use Grokipedia, but Wiki definitely has a stronger slant: it's as if an article about Black Lives Matter started with a statement that it was a campaign meant to scam people to pay for mansions for leadership.

Which facts are represented is equally important as being factual though.

Brian hit Jim can be a fact. But if you emit "Jim murdered Brians whole family", its a disortation of truth

I'm sorry, but that sort of thinking just doesn't pass the smell test.

We can easily identify the geographic locations of people's ancestors by looking at them. That means that we evolved quite a few exterior physical traits that are easily grouped and identifiable. Do you really think our brain, which is our most important survival trait, was immune to evolution? That people that moved to specific regions didn't have had selective pressures of some kind on the way we think?

Where this can go awry are the people that learn about this and then think that it's reason to discriminate against individuals or groups - of course it isn't. As you said, genetic diversity within groups is large. And even something like IQ certainly doesn't sum up the worth of someone, or even their brain.

The whole point of what I posted though was just to point out the fact that Wikipedia is, in fact, biased in what's put on there. It wasn't that long ago that it was perfectly OK as an academic to study the racial differences in IQ. Now? Good luck. Wikipedia reflects that.

I wonder how much longer that link will stay up with the current administration...

Ok, change it to "what we call race as a proxy for general geographic locations that people's ancestors come from."

Which is what we all mean by race, anyways.

I asked ChatGPT on whether or not it was the "scientific consensus."

"Anonymous surveys of intelligence experts reveal division: a 2016 survey found that about 49% attributed 50% or more of the Black-White gap to genetics, while over 80% attributed at least 20%; an earlier 1980s survey showed similar splits. These views are more common in private or anonymous contexts, contrasting with public statements from bodies like the APA that find no support for genetic explanations."

Hm, sure seems like Wikipedia should probably have a more balanced, nuanced discussion considering the experts are split at least 50/50.

Wikipedia does not care about scientific consensus. It just summarizes "reliable" secondary sources.

There have been many, many studies that show that "race" is related to IQ. A true, unbiased article would show that as well as any well-founded criticisms of it.

Anyone familiar with Wikipedia etiquette knows how to find the answer to this question. Rather than getting into an argument here about a subject there, I'd prefer you familiarize yourself with the norms of that community, and if you already have or are experienced with them, then you know where to discuss the subject guided by those norms.