This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Wikipedia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Logic Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic Countering systemic bias Top‑importance This article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

"Polarization and reliability of news sources in Wikipedia", a 2024 article by Puyu Yang and Giovanni Colavizza, is cited in the Articles related to U.S. politics section.

I included the following content in Special:Diff/1270850222/1270982554 to include additional information about how the article determined its conclusions (emphasis added):

A 2024 study published in Online Information Review found that Wikipedia cited a greater proportion of sources that were consumed predominately by liberal-leaning audiences than sources that were mainly consumed by conservative-leaning audiences, which the authors interpreted as a "moderate yet significant liberal bias". Using reliability ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check, the study found that conservative sources tended to have "very high", "low", or "very low" reliability, whereas liberal sources tended to be of "high" or "mixed" reliability, and concluded that "there is no clear relationship between a news media source's reliability and its political leanings" that would account for Wikipedia's sourcing patterns.

This was later reverted in Special:Diff/1271027790, with no edit summary, to a description that only included the article's conclusions while removing some of the details of the methodology (emphasis added):

A 2024 study published in Online Information Review found that Wikipedia cited a greater proportion of liberal sources than conservative sources, which the authors interpreted as a "moderate yet significant liberal bias". To investigate whether this disparity could be the result of differences in reliability between liberal and conservative sources, the researchers compared news source reliability ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check and metrics of political media polarization from the Media Bias Monitor. The study concluded that "there is no clear relationship between a news media source's reliability and its political leanings" that would account for Wikipedia's sourcing patterns.

I propose to restore the additional details about the article's methodology, which give readers more context about why the article came to its conclusions instead of simply stating them. — Newslinger talk 07:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find your text hard to read and make sense of, sorry. Perhaps, after a reasonable short presentation here, the keen reader should go and read the original paper to explore the methodological nuances. Tytire (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if we change it to:

A 2024 study published in Online Information Review found that Wikipedia cited a greater proportion of "Liberal" sources than "Conservative" sources, which the authors interpreted as a "moderate yet significant liberal bias". To investigate whether this disparity could be the result of differences in reliability between liberal and conservative sources, the researchers compared news source reliability ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check and metrics of political media polarization from the Media Bias Monitor. The study concluded that "there is no clear relationship between a news media source's reliability and its political leanings" that would account for Wikipedia's sourcing patterns. The study also found that "The relationship between reliability and political polarization is complex, with more conservative sources being associated with both high and low reliability, while liberal sources tend to more often be of mixed reliability."

I think the sentence To investigate whether this disparity could be the result of differences in reliability between liberal and conservative sources, the researchers compared news source reliability ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check and metrics of political media polarization from the Media Bias Monitor, gives a much clearer description of the methodology.

The following phrasing is unclear and not verified, since the source article doesn't use that language anywhere: sources that were consumed predominately by liberal-leaning audiences than sources that were mainly consumed by conservative-leaning audiences. They simply refer to the sources as either Liberal or Conservative, which is the conventional phrasing, and it overcomplicates our description to invent such a verbose interpretation.

Also, the phrase conservative sources tended to have "very high", "low", or "very low" reliability, whereas liberal sources tended to be of "high" or "mixed" reliability does not actually add any context about the article's methodology, but emphasizes a tangential point, and sort of buries the most important information, which would the methodology and the findings. I would be OK with leaving that part in, if necessary, but putting it at the end of the paragraph, so that it doesn't have such a dominant presence. Manuductive (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your phrasing. There are two separate claims from Yang (2024) to be addressed, so I am splitting this discussion into two subsections, one for the "Media Bias Monitor" methodology and one for the Media Bias/Fact Check methodology. — Newslinger talk 08:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Yang (2024), Media Bias Monitor is not a publication or an organization (and should not be italicized), but a methodology that uses the political orientation of a publication's Facebook followers to "infer" the political orientation of the publication (emphasis added):

Based on this methodology, Yang (2024) has determined that Wikipedia articles cite sources with more liberal-leaning Facebook followers more than sources with conservative-leaning Facebook followers. The following would be a clearer and more representative summary of Yang (2024) than omitting any details about the Media Bias Monitor methodology:

• A 2024 study published in Online Information Review found that Wikipedia tended to cite news sources with more liberal-leaning than conservative-leaning Facebook followers, which the authors interpreted as a "moderate yet significant liberal bias".

I do not oppose also mentioning the name of the methodology (Media Bias Monitor), but if included, the name should be included alongside (and not in replacement of) a brief description of what the methodology entails. — Newslinger talk 08:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the Media Bias Monitor, it strikes me as worth noting somewhere that the authors "focus only on the US-based Facebook users for this study," whereas many en.wiki editors aren't US-based. It's a little hard to know the distribution of en.wiki edits by country, but this 2020 source, which based its assessment on geolocation of IP edits, placed less than half of en.wiki's IP edits in the U.S. However, there's no way of knowing whether the geolocations of IP edits are representative of all edits. I've seen more than one editor state that news sources assessed as liberal in the US would be assessed as centrist in some other countries. I don't know if there are any studies confirming that, though Yang and Colavizza did say that "The US-associated [Wiki]project leans more toward conservatism, while the India-related [Wiki]project exhibits a predilection for liberalism." At any rate, to the extent that there's a mismatch between the sample used in creating the Media Bias Monitor and the locations of WP's editors, it raises questions re: the conclusions about the degree of bias in the news sources. There may not be way to note this without it being OR. Only peripherally related: why is the paragraph about the Yang and Colavizza study placed in the Articles related to U.S. politics section? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry), abbreviated as MBFC, is a website that uses a six-level scale for factual accuracy, according to its methodology:

Yang (2024) found the following trends using MBFC data (emphasis added):

Yang (2024) argues that there is no association between reliability and political orientation, because when the authors used their "multiple linear regression" methodology to interpret the MBFC ratings, the "very high reliability" conservative sources counterbalanced the "low and very low reliability" conservative sources:

The MBFC data and analysis have nothing to do with content on Wikipedia, so if the argument is that these findings about MBFC are too "tangential" to include, then the article's claim about how "there is no clear relationship between a news media source's reliability and its political leanings" should also be excluded from this Wikipedia article. Otherwise, if the information is included, then this Wikipedia article should specify the MBFC rating levels that correspond to both conservative and liberal sources to explain how Yang (2024) came to its conclusion. The latter case forms the basis of the following text:

• Using reliability ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check, the study found that conservative sources tended to have "very high", "low", or "very low" reliability, whereas liberal sources tended to be of "high" or "mixed" reliability, and concluded that "there is no clear relationship between a news media source's reliability and its political leanings" that would account for Wikipedia's sourcing patterns.

— Newslinger talk 08:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Would you be comfortable with:

A 2024 study published in Online Information Review found that Wikipedia tended to cite news sources with more liberal-leaning than conservative-leaning Facebook followers, which the authors interpreted as a "moderate yet significant liberal bias". To investigate whether this trend might be the result of differences in reliability between liberal and conservative sources, the researchers used a multiple linear regression to explore the relationship between source reliability ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check and source political polarization metrics from Media Bias Monitor. The study found that conservative sources tended to have "very high", "low", or "very low" reliability, whereas liberal sources tended to be of "high" or "mixed" reliability, and concluded that "there is no clear relationship between a news media source's reliability and its political leanings" that would account for Wikipedia's sourcing patterns. Manuductive (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think something shorter. I will absolutely concede this is a reliable source. However I am ambivalent about using reliable sources to back-door WP:GUNREL sources into articles. As such I'd say there is due inclusion of the paper but that it should be significantly shorter than a full para. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, would you like to propose some language? Manuductive (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this phrasing, which looks accurate and representative of the study. While citing MBFC directly would generally be inappropriate due to it being self-published, Yang (2024) uses MBFC as a source of raw data and combines it with additional data from a different study (the Media Bias Monitor paper) to draw its own conclusion. Citing Yang (2024) is similar to citing a study that analyzes social media posts to draw conclusions about them; while it is unacceptable to cite most social media posts directly or to conduct original research using them, it is acceptable to cite reliable sources that interpret them. — Newslinger talk 02:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Implemented in Special:Diff/1274258923/1275979824. Simonm223, if there is a way to reduce the length of the text without eliminating necessary context, I'm interested in seeing how that can be done. — Newslinger talk 05:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see the need for ... conservative sources tended to have "very high", "low", or "very low" reliability, whereas liberal sources tended to be of "high" or "mixed" reliability, and... It seems like excessive detail, extraneous to the topic at hand, and a bit of a distraction. I only put it in because it seemed necessary for consensus. The important bit is The study found that ... "there is no clear relationship between a news media source's reliability and its political leanings" that would account for Wikipedia's sourcing patterns. Manuductive (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained before, because the study's entire Media Bias/Fact Check analysis was not based on Wikipedia content at all, "The study found that conservative sources tended to have 'very high', 'low', or 'very low' reliability, whereas liberal sources tended to be of 'high' or 'mixed' reliability" is necessary to explain how the study came to the conclusion that "'there is no clear relationship between a news media source's reliability and its political leanings' that would account for Wikipedia's sourcing patterns". Including the latter claim while excluding the former claim would mislead readers into believing that such a conclusion was drawn from Wikipedia content. If this is such a distraction, then all of the MBFC-related content should be deleted, including both the former and the latter claims. My preference is for keeping both statements in the article. — Newslinger talk 10:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see it the same way as you. We clearly specify that the conclusion is based on a multiple linear regression to explore the relationship between source reliability ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check and source political polarization metrics from Media Bias Monitor. The latter claim (no clear relationship) is obviously essential to the whole thing. Really this all boils down to the fact that A 2024 study published in Online Information Review found that Wikipedia tends to cite more liberal than conservative news sources, even when controlling for variations in source reliability. But let's not re-litigate the whole thing if you disagree--let's just keep it the way it is. Manuductive (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me chew on this a bit and see what I could do to shorten without removing necessary context. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven, Usr Trj Discussing these reverted contributions: [1][2], this is notable and weighty/due based on representation of his views in reliable sources and the prominence of Musk personally, and that notable persons and the general public have responded to him, showing his important impact on the discourse concerning the alleged ideological bias on Wikipedia.

Dodds, Io. "'He is world’s leading free speech hypocrite’: Elon Musk’s battle with Wikipedia is part of his war on truth." The Independent, 24 Jan. 2025, [3]

Rascouët-Paz, Anna. "Elon Musk Urged People to Stop Donating to Wikipedia. Here's Why." Snopes, 27 Dec. 2024, [4]

Jones, CT. "Elon Musk Offers to Also Ruin Wikipedia." Rolling Stone, 24 Oct. 2023, [5]

Hart, Benjamin. "Jimmy Wales on Why Wikipedia Is Still So Good." Intelligencer, 2 Dec. 2024, [6]

Milfeld, Becca. "Musk, Wikipedia Founder in Row Over How to Describe Nazi Salute." Barron's, [7]

Scully, Rachel. "Elon Musk Offers $1M to Wikipedia if They’ll Change Their Name." The Hill, [8] Manuductive (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really about ideological bias on Wikipedia. It's about a rich right-wing guy's random utterings. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one rich person complaining is more about that man than about Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musk’s comments have had a significant impact on the public discourse surrounding Wikipedia, indicated by the prevalent coverage in established publications, including their criticism of his views, and the back-and-forth between Musk and notable persons like Jimmy Wales. Manuductive (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but one rich man's opinion is still one man's opinion, and not even a scholarly one. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the ravings of one uneducated rich guy are undue inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk is the owner of X, the 6th most-visited website in the world. So yes, his opinion about another of the websites in the top 10 is relevant and deserves inclusion. Now, I would like to hear an argument to remove his opinion that isn't based on personal "I don't like Elon Musk" reasons. Cambalachero (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is not an expert in Wikipedia, politics or sociology, he is just a very rich man, thus this might well fall wp:undue. Also, his dispute seems to be (at least in part) based upon how we cover him, its not ideological bias (so might fall foul of wp:mandy), in fact its hard to see with silliness like renaming has to do with anything relevant. The fact he owns a really big megaphone does not make his views relevant, what would be if they actually have an impact. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't include his opinions on COVID because he's not an expert and his opinion is neither scholarly or journalistic. GMG^talk 14:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what? He spent more money than anyone should have to buy a website. That doesn't make him an expert in anything other than acquiring assets. And, on Wikipedia, expertise is the currency - not extravagant displays of the power of wealth. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undue? In case you forgot, weight is determined by coverage by reliable sources, and Musk does have such coverage. And don't move the goalposts: if there's more to this than what the edit has written, then add or rewrite, the entry has been deleted wholesale and that's what we're discussing here. And GreenMeansGo is right: we don't include Musk's opinions of COVID. Anatomy and biology are hard sciences. A web page like Wikipedia and its stuff, on the other hand, falls in the domain of soft sciences. Newsweek, Snopes, Dallas Express and other such sources may not be reliable for talking about viruses and the human immune system, but they are reliable to talk about Wikipedia and the things noteworthy people say about it. Cambalachero (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes undue "Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source", why are his views significant, and note [[WP:VNOT] "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included". Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said it: it is significant because there are several sources that report it. Cambalachero (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS applies. This is gossip. It's a bunch of chattering about the ressentimental complaints of a billionaire who is disappointed he can't buy favorable coverage in an encyclopedia. Being in a newspaper is not a guarantee something is due inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can this be gossip? Nobody is saying anything about the private life of anyone. And it is correct that we may decide not to use a piece of information that is verifiable, but we need a reason for that; a reason stronger than "I don't like this guy". See Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. Cambalachero (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a viewpoint on this topic by a prominent individual that is WP:DUE (Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject) because this view has gotten a lot of representation in sources that happen to be on the list of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

Propose to add:

Elon Musk received prominent coverage in mainstream outlets for his claims that Wikipedia has a "woke mind virus" and that it presents imbalanced coverage of topics related to political extremism. These statements were widely criticized as representing an effort to retaliate or censor against unfavorable coverage of him on the site, and that it constitutes a "misunderstanding" of Wikipedia's decentralized editing process. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said, "I think Elon is unhappy that Wikipedia is not for sale," a reference to Musk's acquisition of Twitter.

Manuductive (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manuductive What exactly is the price tag of due weight? How rich does a person have to be for their opinion on whatever issue they want to opine on to be automatically notable? Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musk's statements hold significant weight in the broader discourse on this issue, not merely because of his wealth, but due to their influence and importance in shaping public debate. There is ample evidence for this:

•When Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, directly addressed Musk's comments, it highlighted the relevance of Musk’s statements in the ongoing discussion about ideological bias online. This back-and-forth shows that Musk's viewpoint is central to the conversation, not just an isolated opinion.

•Musk's viewpoints received detailed treatment in authoritative outlets like The Independent, Intelligencer, and Snopes. These sources gave thoughtful, in-depth analysis of Musk's role in the debate over Wikipedia, which indicates that Musk's stance is a significant part of the broader public conversation.

•Regardless of the size of his bank account, Musk has an influential professional role in the realm of internet technology, corporate responsibility, and public policy. His disruptive and innovative leadership in trailblazing internet companies like X.com, SpaceX (the provider of Starlink), PayPal and OpenAI, give his words authority. Like it or not, his viewpoints do matter to millions of people, impacting the public discourse on these topics, which means that his viewpoint is due. Manuductive (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So is it a billion dollars then? Because all you've really said above is that the rich guy should be heard because he has a megaphone. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If by "megaphone" you mean authoritative journalists writing down what he says and critiquing it in their prestigious newspapers, the celebrity founder of this actual website ingesting and critiquing his statements, and millions of people are transfixed with his ideas because of the revolutionary breakthroughs he has dreamed up and had the guts to implement, then sure, yeah. Respectfully, I think it speaks to the core of the issue when a good faith Wikipedia editor can read all that and think that it reduces neatly down to a number on a financial statement. Manuductive (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This bit of fannishness is not a policy-based argument for due weight. It's just you waving around your POV. I think we're done here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already accept the consensus to exclude my contribution. I only replied because you pinged me directly with a shallow and irrelevant red herring argument that Musk's notability on discussions about ideological bias boils down to his riches. Manuductive (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of here with a firm, no to inclusion. lets not wp:bludgeon the process. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose inclusion - One guy's opinion who has nothing to do with encyclopedias. The fact that he is absurdly rich does not make his opinion more accurate or useful. He has opinions on everything. We shouldn't include them in other articles either unless they relate to his work. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose inclusion I've said my piece above. The proposed paragraph is WP:UNDUE on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I also oppose, regardless of the merit or the author. It's an encyclopedic article, not press clipping. Tytire (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Musk tweeted some stuff. Some people wrote about it. It's by no means a significant portion of the coverage of either Musk or bias on Wikipedia. He's hardly the first person to go on a tantrum because he doesn't like how they're covered as a pubic figure. It's a dime-a-dozen and a dozen-a-day. It can be included eventually if it proves to be of any lasting significance. GMG^talk 21:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Musk has no relevant background to make his opinion on Wikipedia any more important than mine or anyone else's. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The purpose of the page isn't to indiscriminately list every criticism of Wikipedia made by any prominent individual. We should focus on high-quality sourcing (preferably academic coverage); broad strands of opinion are worth covering, especially when they're reflected in that high-quality sourcing, but we don't cover it by filling the page with a bunch of quotes from people with no relevant expertise all saying the same thing. Truthfully the entire Claims in the media about Wikipedia's ideological bias should probably be removed and rewritten - the article should cover strands of opinion, with weight appropriate to the weight each strand is given in high-quality WP:RSes; it shouldn't be a random dumping ground for every individual article or pull quote. --Aquillion (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that the coverage needs to be woven together into a cohesive narrative, not left in its current form with these separate subsections for the different persons who have weighed in on it. Manuductive (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be in (invited by the bot) From a Wikipedia standpoint, due to being covered by a wide range of sources due to being widely known. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - it should be woven into a cohesive narrative with due weight applied to the various viewpoints. Manuductive (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Per WP:ONEWAY, we mention serious stuff in pages about wacky ideas connected to it, but we do not mention wacky ideas in pages about serious stuff connected to them. It's just noise from someone who does not like people contradicting him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, but how wp:fringe is Musk’s POV really when the lead already states that the mainstream consensus supports left-wing bias? Manuductive (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the source cited for that statement, nor the article as a whole, support the idea that there is such a mainstream consensus, so I've taken it out. We cite papers in the article that describe it as having a left-wing bias, a right-wing bias, and ones that say that it isn't particularly biased at all. In fact, the paper that was specifically cited said that we had different biases in different areas - but in any case it doesn't survey other papers on that aspect, so it's not usable as a source to say that there's an academic consensus. And the body of our article doesn't support it, so we can't state it in the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Looking over the history, it looks like this statement was added to the lead with more cautious wording and an unsuitable source; this was then replaced with a source that looked credible at first glance but which doesn't support the statement in question. In any case it should never have been added to the lead due to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, since it doesn't accurately summarize the article - even if we reworded it to more accurately specify what Greenstein et. all said, it would still be undue to single out their conclusions and not eg. Faris (who describes the site as center-right) or Krebs, Kalla, or numerous other papers listed in the article who describe no clear bias in either direction. --Aquillion (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I assume this page is about the actual bias, rather than merely allegations. Therefore, I would rather not include such claims on this page by people who are not experts, did not do research, but politically motivated. Perhaps this belongs to other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Wouldn't Musk's comments be better suited for criticism of Wikipedia instead of this article? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes,far better. Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Exclude. All the sources listed above (with the possible exception of the Intelligencer article) are primarily about things Elon Musk has said or done, not about Wikipedia itself. Articles should cite sources whose principal focus is the topic at hand. We already have an article on political views of Elon Musk. This material belongs there if it belongs anywhere; it's WP:UNDUE here. Agnostic on whether it belongs at Criticism of Wikipedia as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]