From Dharmapedia Wiki
(Redirected from Wikipedia)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See also Examples of Bias in Wikipedia Censorship on wikipedia Controversies on wikipedia

Wikipedia is a platform for manufacturing reality, disseminating pro-establishment propaganda (and censorship), and damaging people’s reputations[2].

Criticism of Wikipedia —of its content, procedures, and operations, and of the Wikipedia community—covers many subjects, topics, and themes. Wikipedia has been criticized for the uneven handling of articles about controversial subjects. The principal concerns of its critics are the factual reliability of the content; the existence of systemic bias; of gender bias; and of racial bias among the editorial community that is Wikipedia. Further concerns are the existence of social stratification (allowing cliques); and over-complicated rules (allowing editorial quarrels), the conditions of which permit the misuse of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is so entrenched in it's own false narratives at this point that it has become just embarrassing.

Biased editors' standard tactics include claiming conservative-leaning sources as being unreliable (non-RS). This also applies to centrist sources that are simply being truthful. The best way to observe Wikipedia is by reading an article's Talk page. One can see editors disparaging sources contrary to the mainstream media talking points. You will see scandals involving anti Hindu figures are typically dismissed as conspiracy theories. You will also see many derogatory comments about conservative figures, especially Narendra Modi and conservative leaning politicians, judges, and even many international conservative politicians like Donald Trump. Editors who fight for balanced coverage eventually get permanently blocked, as well as a months-long IP block.

One major critic of Wikipedia in India is OpIndia, which started its coverage of Wikipedia in February 2020 with the article Delhi riots: How leftists are using Wikipedia to write the first draft of biased history [archive]. OpIndia's collection of articles on wikipedia can be found here [archive].

OpIndia reported that Wikipedia has long been accused of bias against rightwing or conservative viewpoints. A cabal of editors exists who work together to bias articles and to hide embarrassing facts about left-wing political figures, while at the same time smearing conservatives. Scandals involving left-wing personalities are labelled “conspiracy theories” while left-wing politicians are given a free pass. The pervasive bias includes labelling conservative and right-wing sources as being unreliable.[3][4]

Wikipedia is full of anti Hindu bias, deceit, edits stemming from corrupting conflicts of interest, frivolous gossip, and blatant errors. Wikipedia is at the very least, a pretty reliable source of the official narrative. This list covers a wide range of bias in the English Wikipedia website. Although Wikipedia claims to have credibility because anyone can edit it, in fact, the website represents the views of its most strident and persistent, and that is, anti Hindu editors. Wikipedia is also heavily influenced by paid public relations professionals who do not disclose their conflicts of interest. This list, together with the sublists linked below, provides a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.

Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.

Censorship of criticism on wikipedia[edit]

The following paragraph (censored on wikipedia) about Ideological bias on Wikipedia is an example of censorship of criticism of wikipedia:[5][6]

Wikipedia issued an appeal on 29 June, asking Indian readers for donations to help “defend” its independence. Three days later, campaign against the website began trending on social media. Several users on Twitter, including columnist Shefali Vaidya, BJP leader Nupur Sharma and author Rajiv Malhotra, asked people not to donate to Wikipedia, alleging that it spread biased information and employs “anti-Hindu” editors. Former Rajasthan Cricket Association secretary Sanjay Dixit and Hindutva activist Dr David Frawley, a Padma Bhushan recipient, also joined the campaign and urged people not to donate to the website. Some users on Twitter also questioned if Wikipedia, in fact, required the donations.[7]

— Example of criticism censored on wikipedia

Examples from wikipedia[edit]

"What is all this Hindu garbage.[8]" "The winds of Hindu-majoritarian change have been blowing in India for nearly 70 years".[9]"Some day when science and technology are more advanced, it will emerge that the Indo-Aryans (and their BMAC cohorts) really did destroy the major urban centers of IVC, the climate evidence notwithstanding, and thereby eventually began the world's oldest system of apartheid, the Indian caste system. All the Indus craftsmen joined the ranks of the despised outcasts. The caste system, female infanticide, the taboo on widow remarriage, dowry, even child marriage are pretty much unique to "Hindu" India".[10] "I'm generally very reluctant these days (even depressed) about editing South Asia-related pages, especially India-related ones, where the level of general obsession with India's shining pre-Muslim antiquity continues unabated, probably has worsened in these Hindu majoritarian times, or should I say, anti-Muslim majoritarian".[11] "As for my own personal beliefs, I think the Indo-European migration was no less brutal to the native peoples of India (i.e. the earlier migrants into India) than what is conventionally claimed about later Muslim- and British conquests by modern-day Indians, Hindu nationalists or not. We don't need papers in palaeogenomics to see that. We have only to look around to see the vast and brutal inequalities Hinduism has created in Indian society."[12] "Hindu Indians, of lower castes, had they wanted, could have entirely rejected Hinduism. Goodness knows, there were plenty European evangelists around to help them spiritually."[13]

"Why are you giving so importance to a Third World Contry person like Talageri? These religious beggers and low class people don't deserve this much attention."

— ("User:Truthlover")

"You fucking dirty pagan! I know you're a Hindu Muppet!"

— ("User:Street Scholar")

"If you cannot see the truth, my brother in Islam, then you need to. The unbelievers are lying, as they usually do. There is a group on wikipedia. A group of infidels who sully the name of al-Islam and the noble men who fight and die in the name of Allah and the Prophet (pbuh).But the beautiful words of Allah himself tell us to be the instruments of terror when the infidel tries to fight us, so where is the wrong in that? Yet, the true shaheeds, the martyrs who fight and die for al-Islam, for pakistan, are misrepresented, sullied, and are the victims of Zionist-Hindu lies. This must change now. Look at the edits of many editors, Jews and Hindus, and you will see them removing all the truth and replacing it with Zionist lies. The Hindu kafir has become the instrument of the evil Zionist Jew, and they are our enemy. They fear us. They fear Pakistan, and they fear the greatest army of the house of Islam, and they fear the Islamic bomb. They fear the great Jihad that we stand ready to unleash upon the world. We will bring peace to the world through Jihad. We will wipe out all falsehoods. We will bring Islam to al-Harb again. The infidel nation of India will be the start of the great Jihad. The unbelievers must be enlightened. All who call themselves Muslims here, all who call themselves sons of Pakistan, must wage this Jihad on their keyboards, and then on their homes, and their villages. But the soldiers of Allah must verily take the holy war to the homes of the infidel. That is the goal of all the proud here on this blessed place where we have met. Allah keep you all, my brothers."

— ("User: Nishan")[14]

"These are not simply trolls in the narrow sense, they do not pretend to be clueless brutes, it is difficult to believe, but I think they are fully serious. It is pointless to waste time with them, because even if you get them to listen to sense, there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for babysitting them, Wikipedia is not for them."

— ("User:Dbachmann")

Examples of Bias and errors in Wikipedia[edit]

Anti-dharmic and anti-hindu bias on wikipedia is found in many areas, among them are:

  • Ignoring or censoring the persecution of Hindus
  • Ignoring or censoring cases of anti-hinduism
  • Deletion of articles on topics of Hindu interest is sometimes motivated by anti-hindu bias
  • Pro-Hindu people are labelled as Hindu nationalist, but for example Marxist historians like Romila Thapar are not labelled as Marxist
  • Censorship of Hindu-positive views and scholars
  1. Pakistan [archive]: While the article is silent about issues like forced conversion, temple destructions, slavery and religious persecution during the Muslim invasions of India, it claims that "Sufi missionaries played a pivotal role in converting a majority of the regional Buddhist and Hindu population to Islam".

Even in articles that are at first glance not very much political, systemic bias occurs. Examples are articles like Quantum mysticism or articles on non-western science and medicine like ayurveda. One editor is allowed to edit war to keep articles like ayurved systematically biased, (admins justify it by calling him "useful") but when he exhibits exactly the same behaviour on articles about christianity, he gets blocked and banned by the same admins. [1] [archive]

Structural problems with Wikipedia[edit]

The motto for wikipedia is "threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth", and verifiability has been co-opted by the ministry of truth (all opposing views are by now "blacklisted").


Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a Wikipedia guideline. It functions to censor information about conservative points of view. The original intent, when first expounded by Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger, was to prevent any article from presenting exclusively one point of view on any controversial subject. However, influential cliques found that they could suppress minority viewpoints with the "undue weight" provision. The members of these cliques would claim that by giving attention to a "fringe" viewpoint, an article would give "equal validity" to POV. In practice, this functioned the same as University speech codes to prevent opposing viewpoints from being described fairly - which directly contradicts NPOV.[16]

Larry Sanger said : It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy).[17] Larry Sanger also said wikipedia has absolutely abandoned the neutrality policy by endorsing that journalistic canard (of false balance [archive]).

Wikipedia faces a considerable challenge to prevent misinformation from being deliberately inserted into it. Its large reach, and the fact that it allows anonymous edits make it a tempting target. The guidelines it has set explicitly seek to exclude opinions which are free from hierarchical control; its definition of reliable sources means that anyone who is wealthy or influential enough to communicate their message through the commercially controlled media may ipso facto also tell their story on Wikipedia. This effectively brings a potentially more democratic medium of communication under the control of existing operations such as Operation Mockingbird.[18]

When wikipedia editors tell you that the article needs to be rewritten to conform to NPOV, what they mean is that all views they don't like must be eliminated from the article. Rest assured that they will find a myriad of reasons to remove and censor unwanted facts and views, by claiming that they don't meet the guidelines on reliable sources (all right-wing or pro-Hindu sources have been conveniently blacklisted) or that they are undue weight. And if all else fails, they will try to block and ban you.


OpIndia reported how a wikipedia admin surprisingly wrote that “arguments based on notability criteria should not be given decisive weight in the context of this kind of topic”. The administrator also wrote that they should limit the amount of article creation only because the subject in question is “highly volatile and rife with misinformation and tensions in the real world and on Wikipedia”, which makes no sense and there is no such policy in Wikipedia. [19]

Notability "is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article"[20]. The primary criterion used by Wikipedia to determine notability is that a subject has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time... from reliable independent sources". By excluding individual researchers (no oversight questionable by definition), this cedes de facto control of topics to commercially controlled media . This policy means that Wikipedia, although created mainly by volunteers, amplifies the power of those who have editorial control over television and other commercially controlled media - those which they do not report on are excluded from Wikipedia. Governments seek to manipulate the "notability" of topics of particular interest to them.[21][22]

HISTRS seems to be being quoted as if it were a policy or guideline when, in fact, it is currently no more than an essay The WP:CONLIMITED policy makes it very clear that projects and, by extension, venues such as this noticeboard (and, indeed, dispute resolution venues such as WP:3O, WP:DRN, and WP:MEDCAB where I most frequently work) cannot establish policies and procedures which are binding on the Wikipedia community as a whole, at least not without going through the policy-making procedures set out in WP:POLICY. Treating and referring to HISTRS or criteria established by MILMOS as "standards" or as if they are somehow otherwise binding on all of Wikipedia is misleading, If HISTRS is to be treated as a policy or guideline, it should be submitted to the Wikipedia community as such for evaluation (and I am not at all certain, I must frankly admit, that it will or should survive such scrutiny), but until it has been and passes that scrutiny, it should not be treated or referenced as if it already has.

"Undue weight"[edit]

"Undue weight" is one of the favorite "arguments" used very selectively for content they don't like by pov pushers.


Reliable sources[edit]

Wiki Pravda pov pushers have blacklisted all Indian right of centre news sources. They cannot be used as a source and cited in wikipedia articles. Wikipedia editors are forced to use a limited number of "approved" sources like Altnews and NDTV. In other words: Garbage In, Garbage Out.


On wikipedia, a single pov pusher can establish "consensus" all by himself (if one other pov-pusher agrees) [archive]

Examples of criticism and comments[edit]

  • It is clear that our deep state is obsessed with controlling information and moulding it to fit its narrative. On Wikipedia, a number of 'users' and 'editors' have been planted to ensure that only Pakistan's official stance or the Nazaria-e-Pakistan [ideology of Pakistan] is reflected in the pages on Pakistan. Consequently, the pages on Pakistan's history read like a secondary school Pakistan Studies textbook... All alternative views on Pakistan's constitution, role of religion and federalism are stifled by this group...If one were to venture a guess it would be that these manipulators of the Pakistani narrative on sites like Wikipedia and others are operating out of some nondescript building in Islamabad's G sectors [where Pakistani intelligence agencies are located].
  • When I actually reviewed Wikipedia’s sensible guidelines, not only was I impressed with how forward thinking they were, I realized that their ‘neutrality’ policy is likely the best way to approach what some consider very controversial topics, especially topics that I discuss frequently, such as consciousness, wellness and lifestyle. I was relieved to see that Wikipedia was not meant to be the ideological ‘battleground’ that a large number of skeptics have made it into. That Wikipedia belongs to you and me just as much as it belongs to them. Those editors only have that much control because they have mastered the Wikipedia rules and learned how to use them to their advantage.
  • If Wikipedia wants to live up to its promise of being a reliable encyclopedic source, it will strike this and all sentences resembling it from its article on me. At most, it can use me as an example of how it was fooled by some of its all-too-partisan collaborators. Speaking of whom: the history page accompanying my page proves forever that some Wikipedia collaborators wanted to inflict on me the maximum harm possible, an attitude incompatible with work for an encyclopedia. Shouldn’t Wikipedia fire them and wipe out everything they wrote? Of course they can still contribute blogs and columns, by preference under their own full names, but they have proven themselves not to be encyclopedic authorities.
  • Being by definition the greatest expert in the world on this lemma’s subject, I know for fact that a lot of it is mendacious. It is either your own lie or the lie of a source that you have cited or reproduced in good faith, but either way, it is not truthful. It does not follow your self-imposed requirement of “objectivity”. It describes an imaginary strawman, not me..... Well, there you have it. The lemma on me has ended up taking this form because some militant among your contributors purposely wanted to “warn readers” against me. Please cite me an instruction for encyclopedists that names “warning” among the legitimate goals of an encyclopedia. ... Indeed it serves no purpose to take sides for or against me. But as is clear from your many readers that I have had to deal with, the lemma strongly takes sides, viz. against me. This is intentional, as illustrated by a contributor’s insistence to “warn readers”. Moreover, it is very naïve to think that “the readers of Wikipedia are mature enough to follow up on a controversy when it is pointed out to them, and come to their own opinion without the need of pointing them on their way”. That is too easy a way to deny an encyclopedia’s responsibility. My experience amply teaches that most readers don’t “follow up” on a controversy at all. ...At any rate, in a encyclopedia, I count on being judged for what I myself have said or done, and not for the gossip my declared enemies have come up with.
  • Wikipedia with its free-for-all constitution and arbitrary, secretive contribution and editorial oversight system lacks all credibility. Every fact checked with this Internet reference has to be checked some place else if it is to be accepted as authoritative. Many of its articles on Christianity in India are propaganda projects set up to project a particular Christian world view. This is to be expected: the wiki editing system invites India’s cultural enemies, Christian missionaries and other western neo-colonialists, to propound their hostile, anti-Indian theories. Its administrators are not authorities on the subjects they oversee (Tinucherian is a Bangalore software engineer who knows nothing about St. Thomas and the history of Christianity in India except for what his pious mother may have told him) and their personal prejudices soon become evident and interfere with factual and cited contributions. Wikipedia is the perfect platform for Christian propaganda in India and is being used for that purpose with great effect in its Christianity in India project. This Wikipedia series even employs the symbol of a gold cross superimposed on a light blue map of India, a symbol that is highly offensive to the majority Hindu population who identify India as their mother and civilisational homeland. The fabulous and false “facts” about St. Thomas and India found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and its Internet sister Wikipedia make the ancient Greek historian and geographer Strabo into a prophet (he was a contemporary of Jesus and Thomas). He said, “Generally speaking the men who have written on India were a set of liars.” And so it is with the contributors to the mainstream encyclopaedias and dictionaries that reference Indian history today. And closer to home, Sri Aurobindo, in The Foundations of Indian Culture, referred to “the intemperate … vomit of false witness, hatred, [and] uncharitableness … that are the mark of a certain type of Christian literature….”
  • We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”[5] [archive]

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

These links are being provided as a convenience and for informational or entertainment purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by Dharmapedia of any of the products, services or opinions of the corporation or organization or individual. Dharmapedia bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external site or for that of subsequent links. Contact the external site for answers to questions regarding its content.

General criticism[edit]

Discussions on wikimedia sites[edit]

Anti-Indian bias[edit]


Forum and social media[edit]


This article contains modified content from Conservapedia.

  1. [archive]
  2. [archive]
  3. [archive]
  4. There are loosely connected networks of editors on wikipedia (admins, senior editors, and sockpuppets) who work together to insert bias into articles and to hide embarrassing facts about their preferred political figures, while at the same time smearing other politicians. Scandals involving some personalities are labeled "conspiracy theories" or "controversies", whereas those involving other personalities are labeled "scandal".
  5. [archive]
  6. [archive]
  7. Dasgupta, Sravasti (2020-08-02). "'Biased, anti-Hindu' — campaign begins against Wikipedia after it urges Indians to donate" [archive]. ThePrint. Retrieved 2020-08-14.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Link's archive [archive].
  8. [archive]
  9. [archive]
  10. [archive]
  11. [archive]
  12. [archive]
  13. [archive]
  14. From a post about wikipedia on the Pakhub forum [archive]
  15. [archive]
  16. [archive]
  17. [archive]
  18. [archive]
  19. [archive]
  20. Wikipedia's 'Notability' [archive] guideline
  21. [archive]
  22. [archive]