is it me or some parts of Wikipedia are quite red?

[Ima Farmathar]

Wikipedia is like a prostitute, we have all hired one, but we are ashamed of admitting it... anyway, since we all use em´ it is important to keep em´ clean. I found the following article and for some reason it struck me as if written by a high school comiie kid. The arguments used were a little too much on the red side for my liking, and the "legitimate types" subtitle in the end felt weird.
Is the article red or have I gone too far to the right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_condensation

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

^ obey the law criminal!
but yes some parts do strike me as a bit biased...

[Simon Cashmere]

It is, there is a thing known as the 'Edit Wars'. There is a pro-muslim pro socialist pro immigrant bias, its almost as if the BBC were editing wikipedia...maybe they are.

This piece is especially biassed, quoting Marx as the definitive author on wealth concentration? Sounds legit.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Yes, there are a lot of biased wikipedia articles out there, usually humanities type ones as it's hard to bias a science article. However, that article doesn't look biased to me. It only mentions Marx in discussing people who are opposed to wealth inequality. The article doesn't make a single argument, it just gives information.

And do read what I've said as "it seems biased in the right direction". That article isn't biased in any direction, and if you think it is you would probably do better on Conservapedia.

It is, there is a thing known as the 'Edit Wars'. There is a pro-muslim pro socialist pro immigrant bias, its almost as if the BBC were editing wikipedia...maybe they are.

This piece is especially biassed, quoting Marx as the definitive author on wealth concentration? Sounds legit.

Simon your description of the article is simply inaccurate, why would you make stuff up just to justify your opinions? It quotes Marx, whose writing is quite important in world history, alongside a load of others, and doesn't make him too important compared to those others.

[nce_wht_guy]

If You only want to read things with pronounced 'right wing' bias, go to conservapedia. It's hilarious.

[Ironside II]

We could turn the question around and ask what those who feel this article to be too left, thinks should be added and/or removed.

Because from what I can see, it's a concept that will be mostly spoken about by the left, but it does exist in general.

[Kanaric]

On wikipedia articles that are continuously changed are locked. The site owner is also a libertarian so to suggest the site has red views isn't reasonable.

Sorry but this theory isn't reasonable at all. It is far more reasonable to suggest that perhaps maybe the views are perhaps proven correct theory with fully cited evidence? Often there are not multiple views to a thing and there is only one that is the fully reasonable correct view. I'm sure often that this is the case, wikipedia isn't ruled by American politics.

[Rights of the Individual]

On wikipedia articles that are continuously changed are locked. The site owner is also a libertarian so to suggest the site has red views isn't reasonable.

The site owner doesn't write the articles.

Quoting Marx for a capitalist concept is akin to using Milton Friedman to explain a socialist concept. Of course it's going to be biased; they've devoted their lives to destroying the given economic system.

[Adar]

I would say that areas that only are read by socialists tend to be more red than areas which are read by a more general public.

But this case isn't one of them.

[Gatsby]

Well if you want balance you have to include criticism, and if you want criticism for a capitalist phenomenon then Marx is pretty much your go-to guy.

[motiv-8]

There is literally nothing that is biased about that article. It describes what the concept is, gives supporting evidence of its design and applications, gives a portion dedicated to "opposition" since it's, you know, a concept, an idea and not intrinsically factual, and then lists citations with tags throughout the article where more citations are needed.

It's basically the same as any other half-decent Wikipedia article, the only way you could read bias into it is if YOU'RE biased one way or the other. But it's been fun to read an especially paranoid and fantastical assertion in this thread.

[Blau&Gruen]

Is it me or some parts of Wikipedia are quite red?

I think it's read.

[The spartan]

The site owner doesn't write the articles.

Quoting Marx for a capitalist concept is akin to using Milton Friedman to explain a socialist concept. Of course it's going to be biased; they've devoted their lives to destroying the given economic system.

Marx was actually very skilled when it came to classical economics.

[Thorn777]

Today anything actually resembling popular interests, or speaking from its POV in a judgemantal way is immediatly branded "red".

Thats how far they got us.

[LWT]

No, the article is not biased. But maybe if we cry a lot about it, wikipedia will move to the right.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Wikipedia is like a prostitute, we have all hired one, but we are ashamed of admitting it...

Speak for yourself.

anyway, since we all use em´ it is important to keep em´ clean. I found the following article and for some reason it struck me as if written by a high school comiie kid. The arguments used were a little too much on the red side for my liking, and the "legitimate types" subtitle in the end felt weird.
Is the article red or have I gone too far to the right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_condensation

It's in your head. All Wikipedia pages are subject to extremely strenuous edit discussions. If it's a problem for you, you can use Conservapedia:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative

Which is absolutely mental.

[LWT]

It's in your head. All Wikipedia pages are subject to extremely strenuous edit discussions. If it's a problem for you, you can use Conservapedia:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative

Which is absolutely mental.

Is that a satirical website?!

[removeduser_487563287433]

I don't think it is. About four, five years ago we had people on this forum who would use it as a source.

[Garbarsardar]

Quoting Marx for a capitalist concept is akin to using Milton Friedman to explain a socialist concept. Of course it's going to be biased; they've devoted their lives to destroying the given economic system.

Damn right! As we all know Marx wrote a famous book "Das Sozial", only he had to change the title at the last moment to "Das Kapital" because the typesetter was out of "S"s.

And yes, Marx was the one who coined the term Capitalism as we use it today, but what did he really knew about the subject?

Bad Wiki, bad commies, bad.

[Lazarus]

Is that a satirical website?!

That one in particular is not. There are also leftist wikis, a 4-chan version of wikis... There's even a wookiepedia (star wars wiki). You think of a point of view, there's a Wikipedia that caters specifically to that point of view.