But here’s the catch: anyone can also revert any changes made by another editor.
This would be bad enough in itself, since we know that truth is not decided by majority vote, and ‘consensus science’ is anti-science.
But it is worse than it seems on the surface, since most Wikipedia articles are not being watched or edited by a very large number of people.
if you ask a younger American how humans arose, you’re likely to get an answer that has nothing to do with God”).
This all adds up to a stark and sad reality: Wikipedia is very likely to be hopelessly, terribly unbalanced in articles dealing with God, religion and creation science.
Probably largely younger people, for starters, and largely Westerners, since the internet is originally a product of the West and is still dominated largely by the West.
It turns out my predictions were right on the money.When you consider who “the mob” is on Wikipedia, it is that subset of people who have access to the internet, know about Wikipedia and care enough about it to make changes on it—and additionally have the technical expertise to do so (since modifying Wikipedia is a bit like using programming language). Come to think of it, that is a pretty specialized group, isn’t it?And would we expect that particular group to fit into any categories?All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.Already you can see a potential here for bias since we have subjective terms such as “significant” and “reliable” being used.This applies to both what you say and how you say it.” There is obviously a major conflict of interest present if people are commonly making edits to Wikipedia for ideological reasons, which is exactly the opposite of Wikipedia’s stated policy of neutrality.Predictably, the result is that bias is rife within the articles on the site.Christians should engage themselves in the debate online by taking part in the editing of Wikipedia articles to remove clear instances of bias (but not to attempt to introduce pro-Christian biases of our own in the text).For my part, I raised a fuss at Wikipedia over Jonathan Sarfati’s biographical page including a defamatory quote from Eugenie Scott calling Refuting Evolution 2 a “crude piece of propaganda”.“There is zero chance that Wikipedia will ever treat pseudoscientists who believe that everything was created in 7 literal days 10,000 years ago the same way we treat the actual scientists -- astronomers, physicists, geologists, paleontologists, etc.Creationists even also publish in secular peer-reviewed journals as well!“Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.