Wikipedia Nature survey was unprofessional and biased

[Edric O]

Remember that old Nature survey that alleged that wikipedia is almost as good as Britannica in science articles? Well, it looks like it was nothing more than amateur journalism, and biased at that:

http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/02/community_and_h.php

I'd also like to add my own observations about wikipedia. A common misconception among outsiders is that wikipedia is ruled by numbers, or is in some other way "democratic" - the side with the most supporters wins. That is completely wrong. It is not the side with the greatest numbers that wins, but the side with the greatest commitment that wins. Wikipedia is ruled by those who are most fanatical about their views or chosen subject.

Knowing that, how can you tell which articles are most likely to be biased and which are most likely to be neutral and factual? Well, allow me to introduce a concept: Asymmetric controversy.

An asymmetric controversy is a controversy between two sides, one of which is particularly interested in the issue and fanatical in defending its opinions, while the other doesn't care about the issue a whole lot. Articles on such issues will inevitably be biased in favor of the fanatical side, because they put most effort into writing about it.

Thus, an asymmetric controversy can be described as any controversial idea that is popular enough to attract a band of loyal supporters to defend it on wikipedia, but not popular enough to attract critics. Paradoxically, this means that any idea widely considered too insane to be criticized will have a favorable article written about it, since its advocates are fanatical about the issue while its opponents consider it too crazy to bother with. Keep in mind that what makes these controversies asymmetric is not the number of people on each side, but the intensity with which they defend their views.