What this utterly self-absorbed arrogant prick doesn't seem to realise, is that in politics, especially on a global scale, "Conservative" is not and likely never will be shorthand for a climate-change denying Bible-bashing adherent of Reaganomics.Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished delusions. Broflakes and snowflakes alike will find some of our content offensive due to tying their sense of self to ideas that are objectively wrong. We have had this from the earliest days of Wikipedia, around evolution. Reality has a liberal bias, at least as measured by the current Overton window, and that is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
(someone interjects to remind Guy of MPOV)
You are right, "reality has a liberal bias" is sloppy wording. It's just that the conservative agenda right now is dominated by ideas such as climate change denial, creationism and trickle-down theory, all of which are absolutely contradicted by reality. So to say reality has a liberal bias is a common shorthand for a huge source of conflict that conservatives have with Wikipedia and other sources. We don't give equal weight to truth and falsehood. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a warped description even of a significant proportion of the current American right, but in places like the UK, someone of this description has zero chance of being selected to even be a candidate of a major party, let alone of gaining high office.
These are views that in Britain, are only to be found on the fringes, on the edges of the mainstream parties and in the fringe parties, and it shows in the resultant political landscape, as well as our media and public discourse.
Indeed, the current British government is a Conservative administration, and they are very busy levying climate change taxes, they have already legalised gay marriage, and while they still believe economic prosperity is achieved by ensuring individuals and the private sector can flourish, you'd have a hard time spotting the specifics of their agenda which promotes it. Tellingly, the UK is still running a huge debt, and 'austerity' measures are merely reducing the size of of the annual budget defecit, not the debt.
So his assessment of what is reality, and thus where the middle lies, is false. If this person is evaluating reliable sources and editing Wikipedia articles on this flawed basis, then he is undoubtedly ensuring Wikipedia is not neutral, but is biased to the left.
People with brains who engage with Wikipedia spot their liberal bias almost immediately, even many liberals happily admit it, they just do nothing in the belief it somehow advances their cause. Which of course, it does not, it only fuels the alt-right in their efforts to decry the liberal conspiracy.
Shitlords like Guy are the reason why. There are or course Wikipedians who rail against him and his kind, but that is all that they can do, they have little to no effect on how the website is actually run or how the content looks. If you think Guy doesn't represent the consensus view of politics and neutrality on Wikipedia, try altering an article he believes is neutral. At best, you will simply fail your changes being reverted as biased. At worst, you will find yourself blocked.
But why? It's because Guy is an old school power user on Wikipedia, which means when he says something, such as accuse you of being a bad person who isn't on Wikipedia for the right reasons, there's going to be at least ten or even twenty or so fuckwits who will fall into line behind him without even examining the facts (or worse, probably realise someone from the right is being shafted, but will happily support it to maintain Wikipedia's liberal slant). And the great secret Wikipedia doesn't like anyone knowing - that's more than enough editors to organise a Wikipedia lynching. No appeal or any kind of cogent case for the defence will change the outcome.
So called citic site Wikipediocracy is no better. They're as blind (and most likely willfully) to this inherent bias as the Wikipedians are, which is understandable because most of the posters there are die-hard Wikipedians, whose issues with the site have little to do with its political bias.
Wikipedia has a political bias problem, and if you don't agree, it's probably because you're part of the problem. So sort your life out and accept what true neutrality looks like, or chances are you're going to be dogmeat for an alt-right militia in the End of Days. Don't expect the moderate right to help you out, they will have already saught and been granted poltical asylum in Britain.
