Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, published a blog post this month declaring that the online encyclopedia’s “neutral point of view” (NPV) policy is “dead” due to the rampant left-wing bias of the site page .
Generally I agree that the NPV is dead on political pages. I think an inability to agree is why Federated Wiki will take root. We can begin to see the transition in online investigative and political news sites in how the social commenting systems are ranked. New, old, replies, recommended. Giving rise to harder editorial opinions and bias seen in contentious pages on Wikipedia. Here's an example.
Wikipedia editors discourage (stop) Criticism section of Critical Theory. See 'page talk' the article lacks a Criticism section... page
Not only Wikipedia.
Recently I unsubscribed from the Financial Times after subscribing for over half my adult life. The FTs Editorial board opinion, I find too biased to read, it's also left unsigned by made by anonymous authors. The FT's online commenting system used to highlight the best alternative or neutral POV, akin to letters to the editor, but this is no longer the case. Instead comments made by the readership are ranked and presented by algorithm. This methodology is leading to harder editorial opinions often backed by cherry picked facts devoid of full context (how crafty to scope facts). Giving rise to bias. Given the NPV is dead. A new publishing system designed for forking and editing your own version is due to capture the post NPV zeitgeist. I don't think the badly biased articles are made by bad people. I do think biased articles arise from the social peer pressure in large networked communities i.e. MSM, MSNBC, CNN, now sadly FT. The network effect and speed and simplicity of likes and ad-tech fuels bias.
Fedwiki provides a writing, sharing, editing tool without perverse market incentives and social accelerant effects helping us move back toward a community driven NPV. The best way online to arrive at NPV is to read and write (a lot). Hello Wiki.