Board Thread:Community Announcements and Events/@comment-11008902-20160217163414/@comment-26017205-20160306214520

Zippertrain85 wrote:

Wulfharth wrote: My main question (probably towards Ned) about this is how will the Bias Policy be enforced?

Given the history of this wiki, there are a ton on people who hate each other. If there is one thing I have noticed, its people like to use passive agressive comments about others. This will bleed into the articles.

Whats stopping User A (who hates User B or has a history with them) going to their page and writing it to show them in a bad light? With no references or sources listed to back it up. Remember, this can be subtle - you don't need out outright say "User A was an asshole". For example:

"User A caused much drama and was the for the reason the Exodus. They were disiked by many and the wiki was better off without them."

See most of that above statement is an opinion, and if it was written by someone who had direct conflict with the person in question, it would be totally biased - will you moderate the pages properly to ensure bias is kept out and keep them factual? Since I am editing there Wulf, I am under the impression each page is written from the "User's" POV.

I.E. A Jimeee page would much more sympathetic towards the site's past Administrators and the rules before the revolution. A Sajuuk page however, would be much more harsher towards them and sympathetic towards the rebels. You see what I mean? Well yeah, that is what i'm saying about bias too. In your example, both of those people are no position to edit a page about the old system because its a clear cut conflict-of-interest, which all wikis avoid.

You got the impression its POV editing? Just so you know, point-of-view editing cannot be trusted as reliable because my POV of User A is different to Ottoman Hold's, which is different to Avi, which is different to etc etc. Who decieds which POV is correct? The answer is to disregard opinion-based editing and stick to the facts which can be proved with a reliable source (as any good wiki would maintain)

A good example is the GamerGate page on wikipedia. That page is controlled by people who are very stongly against GG and any attempts to edit that page to make it more balanced is reverted. As a result, the page is complete garbage and full of people pushing an agenda. Its why your teachers don't alow wikipedia as a proper source of info.