Wikipedia’s narrative-controlling left-wing admins have already said of Hunter Biden‘s involvement that “He and his father have been the subjects of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories pushed by Donald Trump and his allies.” Both the Hunter Biden and the Biden-Ukraine articles are blocked from editing until March 2021. It’s insane considering this is a developing story and they can’t just label ongoing events as “false” or “debunked.”
Wikipedia‘s content is governed by three principal core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Editors should familiarize themselves with all three, jointly interpreted:
- Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) – All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.
- Verifiability (WP:V) – Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source.
- No original research (WP:NOR) – Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.
These policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors’ consensus. These three policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.
Notes and references
- Wikipedia’s co-founder, Jimmy Wales, has described the original research policy as originating “primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web. The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn’t appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone’s novel theory of physics is valid, we aren’t really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it’s quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history, though I suppose the application will in some cases be a bit different and more subtle.” Wales, Jimmy. “Original research”, 2004-12-03.
- Wales, Jimmy. “Original research”, 2004-12-06.