Wikipedia: The Anti-Trump Coat Rack
Eric Lendrum, Politics Contributor
Opinion -- Although it’s been common knowledge since high school that Wikipedia should be avoided for its unreliability, that concern always stemmed from the fact that Wikipedia - for the most part - is open and accessible for editing by just about anyone in the world.
Now, Wikipedia has undoubtedly proven itself to be unreliable in the political sense too. It is dominated by a clear left-wing bias, now manifested in the website’s opposition to President Trump.
Although Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has admitted, on several occasions, to a left-wing bias on Wikipedia, he has caved to the bias himself and now supports Wikipedia’s latest left-wing crusade: Nonstop attacks against President Trump, carried out by an excessive quantities of anti-Trump articles. Wales agrees with the mainstream media’s false allegation that President Trump and his Administration are guilty of spreading misinformation, and decided to team up with the fake news media to “combat” this. The result is a project called “Wikitribune,” where, Wales says, professional journalists and the community of anonymous Wikipedia editors will be “working side-by-side as equals” to write and edit articles against Trump.
In other words, the very same brand of individuals who are guilty of spreading fake news against the President now have a direct link to, and influence over, one of the largest online sources of information. The results speak for themselves.
For starters, Wikipedia has been churning out a massive laundry list of every single protest in history against Trump, both pre-election and post-election, as if the man is responsible for a protest a day. There’s an article summarizing the general trends in protests against him, during the campaign, after the election, and since he took office. But there’s also an article on the “timeline” of protests, giving individual dates and extended descriptions of each and every single protest that’s ever occurred. There’s articles for most of the major protests you’ve probably heard of, including the “Women’s March” and the “Day Without Immigrants.”
There’s also an entirely separate article focusing exclusively on LGBT protests against the President. Because why not?
Ever heard of “GrabYourWallet?” Nope? I haven’t either, but there’s apparently a Wikipedia article for thatas well. Apparently it’s the unofficial name of a broad campaign to boycott Trump-affiliated businesses, even though I have never heard this phrase once until I started researching Wikipedia’s plethora of anti-Trump pages for this particular article.
There’s an article for protests against the President’s travel ban, as well as a separate article also featuring a list of every single anti-travel ban protest.
Similarly, there’s an article for the “March for Science,” and yet another corresponding article for a list of all those protests. There’s also a separate page for something called the “People’s Climate March,” even though that’s basically the same thing as the March for Science.
Did you ever hear of the “Not My Presidents Day” demonstrations against Trump on President’s Day? I sure didn’t, but there’s a Wikipedia page for that too.
And this trend is still continuing to this day, with a page on the “March for Truth” demonstrations against the fake “Russia” conspiracy theory that took place just recently, on June 3, even though these protests were sparsely attended.
Speaking of Russia, Wikipedia has also spent much of its time building up a similar plethora of articles on this baseless conspiracy theory, treating it as if it’s actually real and will become Watergate 2.0. Clearly, the powers that be at Wikipedia are determined to claim a spot in history as a website that pushed this theory in the hopes that it will be proven true. But it only makes them look even dumber than before.
There’s an article on the very subject of “Russian interference” in the election, even though that is literally still unconfirmed. And, you guessed it, there’s a corresponding article giving a “timeline” of said non-existent interference. Even Orwell could not make this up.
Remember that infamous “golden shower” dossier claiming to have evidence of the extent of Trump’s Russian connections? The one that was completely debunked? Well, the fact that it was fake hasn’t stopped Wikipedia from making an article for that as well.
How about the President’s supposed disclosure of classified information to Russia? Another incident that also has not yet been confirmed, and could very well be a media lie to harm the President? There’s a Wikipedia article for that.
Don’t believe my earlier theory that Wikipedia is actively trying to play a more “investigative” role in this hysterical witch hunt? There’s an article on all of the Trump Organization’s business projects in Russia, as well as another article on supposed “links between Trump associates and Russian officials.” Because Jeff Sessions meeting with Russian officials during his tenure as a Senator, on the Armed Services Committee, is definitely evidence of Russian collusion by Wikipedian standards.
I could go on and on, but the list is just too massive on a wide array of other irrelevant subjects domestically and pre-election. However, I will end this article with an ironic observation: Wikipedia, by colluding with journalists and throwing all of its weight behind the anti-Trump movement, has not only surrendered any surviving shreds of credibility or reliability, but has also violated one of its own policies: A rule known as the “Coatrack” rule. The idea of a “coatrack” article is that it strays too far off its own topic and talks tangentially about other things that are loosely related to the original subject - in doing so, it becomes like a coat rack where so many people hang their coats, hats, and other items on the rack that you eventually don’t see the rack itself anymore.
Particularly, there are two types of coat racks on display here: The first is the “But it’s true!” coat rack, which says that even if the contents are “superficially true...undue attention to one particular topic within the scope of the article creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful.”
The second coat rack violation, obviously, is the “fact picking” coat rack, which speaks for itself: “Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject (positive and negative), a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. This sounds mighty familiar. It also goes on to acknowledge the bias of a vocal minority, saying “a common fact picking device is listing great numbers of individual people’s quotes criticizing the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentioning that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people.” Interesting.
As if Wikipedia already wasn’t unreliable enough, it has now thoroughly destroyed itself both in terms of academic credibility and political neutrality. To put it bluntly: Wikipedia, you are fake news.
You can follow the author on Twitter: @EricLendrum26.
The Millennial Review is taking the fight to the front lines as we battle for conservatism in the millennial generation. Join us! Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter.