This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts WP:ADDBIAS WP:FIXBIAS

This page in a nutshell: A guide for editors and readers who want to fix the bias of an article on Wikipedia.

Sometimes, you will come across a Wikipedia article that seems to have a serious point-of-view problem. It reads as a biased diatribe against the subject of the article. Or perhaps it reads as a biased diatribe in favor of the subject and against critics. Either way, you want it changed. Well, if you don't want your edit reverted or your talk page complaint ignored out of hand, there are a few things you should do first.

Before making any attempt to address bias in any article, you should first understand how Wikipedia and other encyclopedias treat neutrality. In general, we do not hold to the principle of giving equal weight to all points of view.

Journalistic neutrality vs encyclopedic neutrality

In journalism, neutrality is generally seen to be met by giving all sides of an issue equal treatment. This is the view that has come to be held as the most neutral view by the populace at large as well, due to the fact that the larger population is exposed more to journalism than any other form of documentary media. The reason journalists use this form is because it removes the writer from any 'side' of a controversy, while allowing them to craft a compelling story. Without conflict, after all, you can't have a story. An often-used shorthand for this approach to neutrality is to say that a truly neutral work is one in which you can't tell which side the author supports.

For an encyclopedia however, this approach to neutrality has a number of problems. Encyclopedias are a compendium and summary of accepted human knowledge. Their purpose is not to provide compelling and interesting articles, but to provide accurate and verifiable information.

To this end, encyclopedias strive to always represent each point-of-view in a controversy with an amount of weight and credulity equal to the weight and credulity afforded to it by the best sources of information on the subject. This means that the consensus of experts in a subject will be treated as a fact, whereas theories with much less acceptance among experts, or with acceptance only among non-experts will be presented as inaccurate and untrue. The best shorthand for this is to say that try as you might, you'll never prove the author wrong.

The effects of encyclopedic neutrality

The use of encyclopedic neutrality often results in encyclopedia articles appearing to take a side. This is rarely the primary purpose of such articles (though sometimes, editors will create articles for that very reason), but rather the side effect of the consensus of the sources used. For example, our article on the flat earth does not lend any credibility to the claim that the earth is flat. It clearly takes the side that flat earth theories are incorrect, and that those who advocate for them are wrong. This is because the shape of the earth is a subject of scientific inquiry, and there is absolutely no scientific support for the flat earth hypothesis. In evaluating the sources available to us, there were none which lent any credibility to the notion of a flat earth, whatsoever. As a result, to someone who either believes in a flat earth or who supports the use of journalistic neutrality, this article will appear to be biased against the flat earth hypothesis. But in fact, this is as neutral as the article can be. It states facts (such as "the earth is an oblate spheroid") as facts, clearly and emphatically. It does not present opinions as facts, and it does not give as much credit to the ideas of a non-expert as it does to the ideas of experts.

Why we use encyclopedic neutrality

If we were to write our articles using journalistic neutrality, we would have to reduce the presented evidence that the earth is actually an oblate spheroid until it matched the evidence purporting to show that the earth is flat. We would have to remove criticisms of the evidence purporting to show that the earth is flat, such that both sides are given equal weight. We would have to diminish or even fail to report on the credentials of those scientists who have spoken out against the flat earth hypothesis, such that their depiction was similar to the non-scientists lacking meaningful credentials who advocate for the idea. In short, we would have to re-write our article to deceptively imply that it was an open and serious question as to whether or not the earth is flat, when the truth is that it is not. This is -quite obviously- counter to the very purpose of an encyclopedia. Implying false equivalences between educated theories and ignorant navel-gazing is very close to the opposite of what an encyclopedia should do, and suppressing accurate information about a subject is the exact opposite of what an encyclopedia should do.

What this means to a person attempting to address the bias of an article

Before you even begin to try to raise the issue at a talk page, you should ask yourself "Is this article really biased, or does it accurately reflect the views of authoritative sources about this subject?" Do some research. Read the sources used by the article and find other reliable sources on the subject. Do they present the subject as controversial, or do they tend to take a side? If there's a clear controversy, what field of study would impart expertise on this, and what side do people who work in that field tend to take? Do the claims made by the article match the claims made by the sources? Depending on the answers to these questions, the article may not be biased at all.

The following steps will help you maximize the chance your complaints are taken seriously:

1. Read Identifying reliable sources. It is a page intended to help readers search for and identify reliable sources. If you have a source in mind already, you can check its reliability by comparing it to the criteria at that page, or using one of the following methods.
   1. Read the Wikipedia article about the source, if one exists. This may give you an idea of whether the source is generally considered reliable, though caution is needed since anyone might have edited the article.
   2. Go to the Reliable source/Noticeboard. Locate the text box labelled "Search this noticeboard & archives" and type in the source's name there. Look for results that say "(Section: [source name])" and click on the source's name there to find where that source was specifically discussed. Read through and try to get a handle on what the community thinks of that source. If there's a lot of disagreement over whether it's reliable or not, or if there's broad agreement that it's unreliable, it's best not to use it. If there is agreement that it's acceptable, then go ahead. Note that some of these discussions might be formally closed. In which case, there should be a closing statement that provides a quick overview of the consensus of the community.
2. If you did not have a source in mind already, use the criteria at Identifying reliable sources to find sources which the community would consider reliable, and which agree with your own point-of-view about the subject.
3. Gather at least two or three of those, focusing especially on sources which explicitly disagree with claims made in the article.
4. Go to the article's talk page, and -using those sources- point out some specific changes you think should be made. Explain that you feel the article has a POV problem, but focus on how to fix it, not complaining about the problem itself. Explaining that you believe the article is biased because of a certain claim in a certain reliable source is perfectly acceptable. However, claiming that the article is biased because Wikipedia is biased, or because you think only biased editors have worked on it will accomplish nothing more than convincing the other editors there that you aren't worth listening to.
5. Revisit the talk page frequently. Engage civilly with editors who respond, and try to remain calm, even if you feel the others are being dismissive or rude. If you can remain calm in the face of personal attacks and rudeness, you are far more likely to get your way. If things get out of hand, and you have remained calm while others insult and belittle you, then visit the Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents and start a thread, using diffs to illustrate the incivility of the others. Be sure to notify the editors you are reporting. If admins agree that the others' behavior is out of line, those editors may be blocked; this may make it easier to make the changes you want, at least in the short term.

• Our policy on the neutral point of view may not be what you expect. Journalistic neutrality and encyclopedic neutrality are not the same thing. Many people are familiar with journalistic neutrality (giving all sides equal consideration), but few people are familiar with encyclopedic neutrality (giving each side an amount of weight equal to its prominence among experts), which can and often does result in unambiguous statements that a certain point of view is wrong. For example, our policies on scientific subjects like evolution are to present the scientific consensus as fact, while describing religious alternatives such as creationism and intelligent design as fringe theories. You can read more about our policy on fringe theories at Fringe theories.
• Even very popular beliefs can be wrong. Opposition to vaccines is a widespread and popular phenomenon that has very little basis in reality. The number of people who agree with your point of view generally has no impact upon the accuracy of that point of view.
• Just as Wikipedia editors may be blind to their own biases, you may be blind to your own biases. Something which seems obvious to you may be disagreed with by many editors. This may very well be because you are wrong and cannot see it. Accepting that you may be biased and listening to other points of view is the only way to overcome this.
• Just because you can make a compelling case doesn't mean you're right. A lot of people have convinced others that the world is flat. That doesn't make them right. Just because you've won over others, or you're using the same arguments that previously won you over doesn't mean you will win a debate with a well-informed opponent.
• There are a number of pages which receive almost constant complaints about bias. If you plan to complain on one of these, your arguments had better be waterproof, and your sources impeccable, or you will likely never even get the chance to engage. Regular editors often grow quite weary of reading variations of the same, tired arguments every day. If yours doesn't stand out, you will get lumped in with the rest and summarily dismissed before you even get the chance to make your case. Pages that get constant complaints are those that cover popular conspiracy theories, political subjects, and any controversial subject currently or recently in the news, such as transgender people or famous people widely accused of sexual harassment. It is advisable to first consult the article's talk page archives and history before posting.
• Don't let the incivility of others make you incivil. A longstanding editor will be given a lot more slack with their behavior than an editor with only a few edits, or one who hasn't registered an account. If it turns into a personal argument between someone who has only edited that one talk page and an experienced editor with 10,000 edits across a huge swath of Wikipedia, the community is quite likely to see the experienced editor's incivility as understandable, and to see the inexperienced editor's incivility as evidence that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. So even if you feel that you are being attacked, do not respond in kind.
• Discuss content, not other editors. While personal talk pages and administrator noticeboards may be used to discuss behavioral issues, article talk pages should discuss the content of articles. Avoid personal attacks and focus on content.
• Attacks on your arguments, no matter how vicious, are not attacks upon you. If you say something incredibly ignorant and an editor says "That is so ignorant that I'm not even going to respond to it," nobody is going to believe you that you were personally attacked. Even very intelligent people have been known to say incredibly stupid things.

That being said, if an editor continually dismisses your arguments as "ignorant", "stupid", "uninformed" or other such adjectives, and refuses to engage on any meaningful level, that editor might not be personally attacking you, but they are certainly not being very civil. Just because you have to remain civil yourself doesn't mean you have to deal with the incivility of others without comment. The best thing to do in such situations is to ask the other editor to explain what makes your arguments ignorant or stupid. If they can't or won't, then you can be reasonably sure that they're being intentionally rude to avoid engaging you. If they keep it up to the point that you can't even make your case to others, file a report at WP:ANI, as outlined above.

• If you are told that your arguing is disruptive, listen. The avoidance of disruptive editing is the basis of all of our behavioral policies. If you are being disruptive, then no matter how strongly you feel about the subject, you will not gain any traction.
• Consensus is the basis of all policies, decisions and guidelines on Wikipedia. If you can't convince a large number of others with compelling arguments, you will not succeed. Any time it seems like it's you against the rest of Wikipedia, you will lose. The way Wikipedia works is such that the underdog never wins. This is intentional, and reflective of Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is descriptive, not proscriptive.
• Always sign your posts. Comments that aren't signed look amateurish, and can be confusing for others.
• Use proper indentation during discussions. Failing to do so is disruptive and confusing, and is a quick way to end up getting ignored by other editors. Here is an example page, illustrating how we do indentation. Feel free to edit that page and experiment.
• Be prepared to accept that you are wrong. It is possible that you can find a dozen impeccably reliable sources which agree with you, format your complaint with perfect attention to detail, engage with a collegiate attitude and make compelling arguments only to lose the discussion because the page already contains four or five dozen reliable sources that disagree with you. Editors may tell you that your sources aren't saying what you think they're saying, or they may point out that your sources are good, but they represent a minority view which is already covered in the article, or they may tell you that -due to factors you hadn't considered- the sources you provided aren't actually reliable (there are many sources which can check a number of the boxes at WP:IRS, yet which are still considered unreliable for certain claims). If it is a few very experienced editors, or a large number of editors of varying experience disagreeing with you, you will not win them over.
• If you can make a good case for your position that the article is not neutral, you will succeed. Despite how it may first seem, editors here are usually more interested in accuracy than in pushing their own POVs. Most POV problems with pages are the result of editors being unaware of their own bias, not a concerted effort to shape how the public views a particular subject. So if you can find reliable sources that clearly agree with you, make a number of cogent points that other editors hadn't thought of, and present a series of arguments that are sound, valid, compelling and with no obvious weaknesses, you will win the debate, even if editors initially oppose you. Many (many) Wikipedians love a good, civil argument, and many Wikipedians make a point of admitting when they have been wrong.