With more and more media organizations and platforms openly admitting to and demonstrating political bias, even Wikipedia has joined the fray.
After declaring its neutrality policy “dead,” the online encyclopedia has launched an attack on Christians and conservatives for their religious views.
And what the site just did has created a firestorm of controversy.
Wikipedia, which is run by “volunteers” and has a long history of inserting liberal political views into its content, is now restricting editors from expressing a belief in Biblical marriage.
Under its new policy, volunteer writers and editors can no longer include in their profiles, or “userbox,” that they believe marriage is between one man and one woman.
According to Breitbart.com, Wikipedia changed its policy after a group of “predominantly left-wing editors” argued that such stances are “discriminatory” and “inflammatory.”
The issue arose when editor Adam Cuerden targeted a volunteer whose userbox said “believes that marriage is between one man and one woman.”
Cuerden called for the userbox to be deleted, calling it “pretty explicitly homophobic” and saying it violated site guidelines that prohibits content that is “inflammatory or divisive.”
Cuerden and other editors went so far as to suggest that all userboxes supporting traditional marriage should be deleted.
The discussion immediately turned hostile and divisive. Administrator Molly White, who holds “special privileges” on the site, argued against neutrality, saying, “We have picked a side, which is that LGBTQ Wikipedians are welcome here.”
White, whose Wikipedia name is “GorillaWarfare,” is identified in her userbox as “queer.”
Another administrator, Guy Chapman, called critics of the deletion proposal “bigots” and compared people who support traditional marriage to people who supported “slavery.” He suggested dissenters should move to Conservapedia, a conservative alternative to Wikipedia.
But with “woke” liberals hijacking the site, the controversy prompted one site administrator, “Ad Orientem,” to resign, saying the decision to delete users for their moral and religious beliefs was “clearly inconsistent” with Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality.
In his resignation, the administrator condemned the hostility toward supporters of traditional marriage.
“[They] represent an ugly tendency to condemn the views of others as outside the bounds of acceptable thought, never minding those views are held by the vast majority of people globally and the followers of most of the world’s major religious faiths.”
The Wikipedia controversy is not the only recent example of publications yielding to political pressure to conform to liberal and extreme left-wing views.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary added the word “offensive” to its definition of “sexual preference” after Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was criticized by Democrats for using the term during her senate confirmation hearing.
Wikipedia has a long history of discriminating against conservative viewpoints and favoring liberal sources and left-wing views. For instance, the site describes abortion as “one of the safest procedures in medicine.”
Earlier this year, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger declared the site’s “NPOV,” or neutral point of view, to be “dead.”
“The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy,” he wrote.
“There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call ‘false balance.’ The notion that we should avoid ‘false balance’ is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy.”
The new policy aligns with its general bias toward Christians and religious views.
In explaining the change in its neutrality policy, Sanger cited the encyclopedia’s page that questions the existence of Jesus and says the Gospels “are not independent nor consistent records of Jesus’ life.”
“It simply asserts, again in its own voice, that ‘the quest for the historical Jesus has yielded major uncertainty on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the Jesus portrayed in the Bible reflects the historical Jesus.”
“… A great many Christians would take issue with such statements, which means it is not neutral for that reason — in other words, the very fact that most Christians believe in the historical reliability of the Gospels, and that they are wholly consistent, means that the article is biased if it simply asserts, without attribution or qualification, that this is a matter of ‘major uncertainty.’”
While acknowledging that questioning Jesus is “a liberal academic discussion,” Sanger argues that Christian views are not neutral, “not in the original sense we defined for Wikipedia.”