It claims that it is a “free” “encyclopedia,” but it is a complete false claim. First of all, it does not and will never include articles such as, “Wikipedia generated Obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Second, it is “free” only to those who have money to use or owe a computer. Therefore, its editing is also not neutral, because only people who have access to computers can edit. So the articles on that site is very biased due to the fact it is edited only by mostly people who are not poor, who have spare time to waste.
That is true especially for those teenagers or younger. A child of parents who work at Mcdonald’s, etc certainly does not have the money to owe a computer or to pay for the high speed internet. When a seven-years-old rich kid may owe several computers, s/he certainly can have time and resources to edit the “encyclopedia,” that is why we see that there are so many articles about cartoon characters, plots, etc. Some poor kids in many other countries have never used computers even once.
Therefore, it is a solid fact that articles and opinions that wikipedia have represent mostly rich people’s points and views. Even if they may have articles that are about poor people, those articles certainly won’t be neutral, because they are written by the rich people who have free time to waste, who owe computers and who can pay for high speed Internet. Take “US history” for an example, if it is written by a native American, it would be an entirely different view. It would put more emphasis on the brutal savage killings that white european men had done to the native Americans.
The pictures that are uploaded will never reflect the poor people, those pics are taken by rich people who have leisure time and who can buy digital cameras. Even for those wikipedia generated OCD patients, they can spend hours on there, because they don’t need to work so many hours a day, and they don’t have to worry about where to get the money for the rent, food, etc.
After all, most people around the world are not rich, many have no computers or digital cameras. Therefore, wikipedia should stop calling itself “free” and “encyclopedia,” it is a site that is operated by the rich.
Be that as it may, the wikimedia foundation takes its responsibilities toward the developing world pretty seriously. There are people who go to foreign countires and interview people about local places and people for (say) the swahili wikipedia.
you think that busy working people will have the time and disorder to spend time “editing” a so-called “encyclopedia?” And you think that that site will have lots of articles written about poor African tribes, or native american articles that truly represent the views of the native people?