Have you considered the differences are because those are different people who have done much different things? I don't see a strong slant either way in these articles.
If you think about the most salient or well covered things by the news in each of their presidencies, they're right there in the header. I'd say it's difficult to write in an unbiased sense about these issues, and given the difficulty, Wikipedia has done a decent job.
I'm not seeing what's biased about Donald Trump's article?
It's all accurate info citing legal cases where he was literally convicted of things. A president being convicted of the things he's been convicted of is the story. Not mentioning it in the intro and elsewhere would be biased.
Your issue seems to be not with "bias" but with how topicality of Donald Trump's actions require them to be prominent within an encyclopedia entry. Which has nothing to do with bias of the editors.
It is sometimes said that reality has a liberal bias. But it is literally the case that historians rank these two presidents at nearly opposite ends of the spectrum, and the article's tone seems to reflect that. Which isn't really an example of bias in Wikipedia - it is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say.
OP’s chosen example was terrible. I’d agree with the premise, based anecdotoly but what a terrible selection of articles to prove a point. Better to link the discussion articles where the editors actively slant the articles
People become more conservative as they age, so maybe the reality quote is about the young and the young edit Wikipedia more
From his 2006 speech/routine at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, speaking to then president George Bush:
> Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in reality. And reality has a well-known liberal bias...
If you think that's bad, you should compare the pages for Genghis Khan and Mr. Rogers.
You should've checked those pages first, they're actually very neutral lol.
If Ghengis Khan was raping & pillaging in 2026 his Wikipedia article might have a more modern slant.
1 reply →
How is the Trump or Obama article not neutral? You can literally correct them yourself if there is anything untrue or biased.
13 replies →
Have you considered the differences are because those are different people who have done much different things? I don't see a strong slant either way in these articles.
Agreeing with the negative portrayal does not make it an unbiased article.
If you think about the most salient or well covered things by the news in each of their presidencies, they're right there in the header. I'd say it's difficult to write in an unbiased sense about these issues, and given the difficulty, Wikipedia has done a decent job.
What exactly do you see as a "negative portrayal"?
And disagreeing with the supposed "negative portrayal" or disapproving/approving of the actions of one does not make an article biased.
I'm not seeing what's biased about Donald Trump's article?
It's all accurate info citing legal cases where he was literally convicted of things. A president being convicted of the things he's been convicted of is the story. Not mentioning it in the intro and elsewhere would be biased.
Your issue seems to be not with "bias" but with how topicality of Donald Trump's actions require them to be prominent within an encyclopedia entry. Which has nothing to do with bias of the editors.
It is an extremely weak argument to just post the links.
Please supply actual instances of the supposed bias.
If you think these are biased, have a load of this one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate
https://grokipedia.com/page/Gamergate
It is sometimes said that reality has a liberal bias. But it is literally the case that historians rank these two presidents at nearly opposite ends of the spectrum, and the article's tone seems to reflect that. Which isn't really an example of bias in Wikipedia - it is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say.
OP’s chosen example was terrible. I’d agree with the premise, based anecdotoly but what a terrible selection of articles to prove a point. Better to link the discussion articles where the editors actively slant the articles
People become more conservative as they age, so maybe the reality quote is about the young and the young edit Wikipedia more
I think people become more conservative as they get wealthier. Getting older just correlates with increasing wealth.
2 replies →
[flagged]
[flagged]
Reality has a well known liberal bias¹ - Steven Colbert
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reality_has_a_well_known_lib...
From his 2006 speech/routine at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, speaking to then president George Bush:
> Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in reality. And reality has a well-known liberal bias...
His whole thing was phenomenal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ-a2KeyCAY