It is WikiSpook's contention that, to the extent that a particular subject is judged threatening to established power centres and widespread acceptance of their official narrative of events, the reliability and ultimate accuracy of Wikipedia articles touching on it is likely to be compromised. At the extremes of power and perceived threat, Wikipedia's 'Neutral-Point-of-View' principle pretty much guarantees that the compromise will be fundamental. See Wikispooks Editorial Policy for a fuller discussion.
I have a problem with this statement.
For instance, the truth about the massacre in Tiananmen Square is being suppressed by an entity currently spending (via internet censorship) many, many $millions to defend it's position, and prepared to spend $billions to stop the guilty parties being brought to book.
However, the MSM (except Rupert Murdoch, who is seeking a monopoly within China) and the Wonkypedia do a middling fair job of exposing this massacre. The problem to be fought may indeed be "established power centres" but such distorters are only a problem when they're carrying out fraud. Which is not all the time. Toolbox 18:32, 3 September 2011 (IST)
Along with Wikipedia "Bias", "Censorship", "Gaps", "Spin", "Obfuscation" - I would like to add "Malice" for situations that do not exactly fit in Censorship or Spin, like the re-writing of the Vernon Coleman article. Does it make sense? Or should I move that in "Spin"? -- Sunvalley (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)