[WikiEN-l] How does Wikipedia compare for neutrality?

[David Gerard]

In a discussion elsewhere [1], the question of how WIkipedia compares
for neutrality with other encyclopedias came up.

We've been compared with other encyclopedias for accuracy before. Has
anyone ever tried to compare us on neutrality? Or whatever
roughly-synonymous measure doesn't automatically bias the test towards
Wikipedia, which has it as a fundamental content policy.

Compare Britannica. They've never touted themselves as neutral -
they've touted themselves as *authoritative*.[2] The Wikipedia article
on EB notes that EB has been increasingly lauded as less culturally
biased with time, though it occurs to me that's just the sort of
aspect a Wikipedia writer would note.

And how good a proxy for what readers actually want is neutrality? I
think it's excellent, but I could be wrong. Do readers actually just
want to be told?

How would you compare the neutrality of Wikipedia with that of
something else, in a meaningful and useful manner, such that the
framing of the question doesn't necessarily pick the winner before
you've started?


- d.

[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/5ho/seq_rerun_politics_is_the_mindkiller/422w
[2] Modulo the EB content disclaimer, which makes ours look mild.