Mediaboss Marketing

In 2011, Raju Jangid from Jodhpur, then a student of Class VIII, searched the internet for information about Bollywood star Mithun Chakraborty, and landed on the actors page on Wikipedia, the largest free encyclopaedia in the world. Subsequently, he found that all his other searches pulled out a Wikipedia page.

The site had information about any topic I searched. My interest increased, and I kept browsing the website to find whatever information was available on it, he recalls.

Over the next few months, Raju looked up Wikipedias history, and learned more about page creators, contributors, editors, and the organisation at large. Owing to his poor financial condition, the village boy from Thadiya had no means to get a smartphone, and used a keypad handset for all his research.

There are discussions among members on the website, and I started reaching out to community members to get answers to any queries I had. I learned that the platform is a non-profit, and the contributors do not get paid. Additionally, anyone can write or edit to the content on the pages, he says.

While as simple as this is in theory, Raju struggled to get his articles, written from his primitive handset, approved. But now, he is a reviewer for Hindi Wikipedia, having contributed to 1,880 articles and edited over 57,000 of them in the language.

A rough start

Raju, now 22 years old, says his journey has been difficult, both on the personal as well as professional front. He had to quit his education to support his farmer parents, who had about 7.5 acres of land. The agricultural activities were barely helping us survive, and my father suggested I start earning. I quit school after Class X, and began working as a carpenter in the village, earning Rs 7,000 a month, he says.

Rajus interest in exploring Wikipedia carried on simultaneously, and he decided to contribute through his writing in Hindi. He started by creating a page for himself and his brother, and wrote some more information about his village. All of it disappeared the next day. With no references to support the information, the article was pulled down by the editors.

I made repeated attempts over two years to upload the articles, but failed. Eventually, the administrator blocked me thrice in 2013 and 2014, In the process, I learned that all the articles need to be unbiased and neutral. They cannot promote or advertise a person or celebrity. Most importantly, all of them need the support of citations and references for the information, Raju tells The Better India.

He created a new account in 2015 and decided to follow all community guidelines hereon. I started writing information about my village and neighbouring areas. After they were approved, I wrote about cricket, as the sport interests me. Eventually, I progressed to composing articles on geography, history, and entertainment, he adds.

But despite the ability and confidence to write, Raju faced technical hurdles. I did not have a smartphone, so I couldnt write any articles beyond 150-200 words. The software in the handset kept crashing, and all information would thus be deleted. I eventually bought a smartphone, but this problem continued. The new device helped me write longer articles, around 400 words, but the editing page refreshed every time I switched tabs to search for references and citations, he adds.

Meanwhile, Rajus salary as a carpenter increased to Rs 14,000. He would give Rs 10,000 to his parents, and the remaining would be for personal use. These earnings helped him pursue his Class XII boards. I worked a 12-hour shift from 9 am onwards every day, and found time between work to write on the website. I would also write till late at night, he says.

Reaching out to millions

Raju Jangid shares tips for new Wikipedia users

In mid-2016, Raju received an opportunity to attend a Hindi Wikipedia conference in Pune, Maharashtra. The community members learned about technical challenges that editors face and decided to help. Two members knew about my weak financial condition and discussed the issue with others. They suggested raising a donation campaign to provide me with a laptop and internet connection. Its a lengthy process, as all members and seniors need to nominate and vote in favour of the hardware donation. Six months later, in December, I received both devices, he says.

Since then, Raju has contributed lengthy articles in Hindi to Wikipedia and has progressed from being an editor to a reviewer. In 2017, Raju quit his job as a carpenter to pursue his education and make a career in writing. While I wasnt earning from writing on Wikipedia, I had developed an interest in it. I loved the fact that millions were accessing the information I was writing. The platform allowed me to provide readers with accurate and useful information. I was proud to be writing for one of the most accessed websites in the world. Moreover, I didnt have to invest any money in the cause, he adds.

Raju completed his graduation in Arts in 2018, while contributing to hundreds of articles. He also got a job with a content writing company in Jodhpur. The Wikipedia community eventually nominated him to become a reviewer. My responsibilities have increased they now involve fact-checking and correcting the articles, and improving their overall quality. On many occasions, there have been arguments between writers about the credibility of the information. My job involves resolving such conflicts and allowing credible information for the readers, he tells The Better India.

Keeping Rajus extraordinary contribution in mind, community members have nominated him to take on the responsibility of an administrator thrice. However, he hasnt accepted the position so far. I do not feel confident enough to take on additional responsibilities as of now, but will rethink my decision when the next opportunity arises, he says.

A need for neutral content

Appreciating Rajus work, Abhishek Suryawanshi, founder and director of Hindi Wikipedia, says the formers contributions towards the language have been immense. There are only 11 active contributors for the section in India. His work has been commendable in providing information in regional languages. Rajus work is read by millions across India. Besides writing the articles, he has also participated in various outreach programmes to encourage more writers to contribute, he says.

Abhishek adds that recently, Raju also contributed to SWASTHA Special Wikipedia Awareness Scheme For Healthcare Affiliates, which provides crucial information to the internet community on COVID-19 in Hindi.

Raju says he wants more contributors to join the website. There are thousands of pages with information the various sectors internet users want to read up on, but none of the information is available in Hindi. Theres a need for unbiased, neutral and non-controversial information, and common people like us can help provide it, he says.

Edited by Divya Sethu

See the original post:
How A 22-YO Carpenter Became a Hindi Wikipedia Reviewer, With Over 57,000 Edits - The Better India

Online encyclopedia Wikipedia went online 20 years ago on January 15, 2001. Since then, the website has become an indispensable reference for the world despite being reliant solely on the work of volunteers for article research and editing. The busy bees behind the Wikipedia scenes are currently curating more than 55.6 million articles in more than 300 languages.

Some volunteer editors have been especially busy asWikipedias own record-keeping shows. Six admins and 176 active users are currently in charge of almost 5.5 million articles in Cebuano, a language spoken in the Philippines. For comparison, the English language the biggest on the platform has 1113 admins and almost 126,000 active users, but only 6.2 million articles.

The Cebuano Wikipedia has admittedly had some help in reaching the top 10. According toreporting by Vice, most Cebuano articles are the work of a translation bot, a tactic not uncommon for the translation of Wikipedia entries.A 2017 proposalfor closing the Cebuano Wikipedia because of its translated content was, however, rejected by administrators since it did not violate any Wikipedia policy.

According to the comments of Quora top writer Josh Lim, large bot-created Filipino language Wikipedias were created when administrators were trying to outdo each other by publishing more articles than other local languages. Waray-Waray makes it into rank 11 of the most common languages on Wikipedia despite having only three admins, while Tagalog is in rank 92.

The bot-based practice dubbed article dumping has obvious drawbacks since translations cannot be fine-tuned and international is prioritised over local content. Yet, to a speaker with limited English capacity, the translation service might remove barriers to knowledge access, even if it is just akin to a translation by browser extension or another webtranslate service.

This article was first published on Statista.

Original post:
Twenty Years After It Went Online, Which Are the Most Popular Languages on Wikipedia? - The Wire

Fans of the zany ITV singing show The Masked singer are convinced they've worked out the identity of Viking - and they say the clues stack up.

The viking character with the ethereal voice is A-ha frontman Morten Harket according to viewers.

Fans of the guessing show flocked to Twitter to claim the Take On Me hitmaker is behind the Viking costume.

They reckon the clues to Viking's identity all add up to it being the Norwegian singer and songwriter.

And mysteriously, Morten's personal life section on his wikipedia reads 'currently feel like a viking.'

One clue is that Viking broke a world record and Morten, who shot to fame in the early 80s, did.

In 2000 Morten broke the world record for the man who could hold the longest single note in a song, holding a note for 20.2 seconds in his song Summer Moved On.

Another was Viking has a Blue Peter badge which Morten, 61, also does from his appearance on the children's TV show in 1986.

"Morten Harket has a Blue Peter badge!!!" cried one viewer on Twitter.

Another wrote: "Still think Morten Harket is the Viking.

"In 2000 he broke the world record for the longest note to be held by a male singer."

Get the latest updates from across Greater Manchester direct to your inbox with the free MEN newsletter

You can sign up very simply by following the instructions here

"Viking is Morten Harket - he has a Blue Peter badge!" said another.

While other fans say the voice is unmistakably Morten's.

"Viking sounds so much like Morten Harket I can't think of anyone else," said one.

"Convinced The Viking on #TheMaskedSingerUK is Morten Harket. I have A-ha tickets booked for May, so please be true!" tweeted another.

And another wrote: "Literally as soon as he opened his mouth on the first performance he did, I shrieked 'NEVER IS MORTEN HARKET ON THIS SHOW!'"

So far singers Sophie Ellis-Bextor and Mel B, former EastEnders and Love Actually star Martine McCutcheon and former England manager Glenn Hoddle have been unmasked.

More here:
The Masked Singer fans are convinced that an 80s pop heartthrob is Viking - Manchester Evening News

The consensus that Israels occupation of the West Bank does not constitute a form of apartheid is shifting on Wikipedia. While the validity of drawing an analogy between Israel and the apartheid regime of South Africa has long been debated on Wikipedia, a new article titled West Bank bantustans shows cracks in the editorial agreements that have stood for almost a decade on the volunteer-edited online encylcopedia.

Wikipedia has had an article on Israel and the apartheid analogy for almost 15 years. However, editors active in this arena told Haaretz that the new entrydirectly comparing Israels control of the West Bank to the Black-only enclaves set up in South Africa indicates a possible shifting of balance in the encyclopedia, where facts are decided by consensus between different groups of volunteer editors.

Editors note that just the fact that a new article with such a contentious title survived a proposal to delete it shows how real-world political events, namely Donald Trumps Middle East plan and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus pledge to annex parts of the West Bank, are undermining the factual basis of one of Israels most important public diplomacy talking points. According to this point, Israel supports a two-state solution and at least in theory strives for the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state in parts of the West Bank.

The Trump plan put everything out in the open, says the editor who opened thearticle, who uses the online name Oncewhile. The last 25 years of peace talks provided a sense of what scraps were being left on the table for Palestinians, but those were leaks, not firm proposals.

Explaining how recent developments facilitated the new bantustans article, the editor adds that after the release of the Trump plan, The ensuing annexation debate resulted in many reliable publications describing what the Israeli government are planning for their captive Palestinian population. As a result, it is no longer credible to argue that the Israeli government does not expect to trap the Palestinians in noncontiguous enclaves. This is the reason for the outcome in the deletion debate.

But Jack Saltzberg, the head of the Israel Project, a pro-Israel advocacy group that also focuses on Wikipedia, disagrees. This is simply another example of an anti-Israel editor creating an article with the singular purpose of promulgating negative and inaccurate information about Israel. Yes, it is a big deal, but no, it is not new, he says.

Its a big deal because Wikipedia is a big deal because so many people, specifically students, get their immediate education through Wikipedia. But its not new. This happens all the time, he says, adding that it is nearly impossible to create a new article if it in any way shows the Palestinians in a negative light, not Israel.

If so, why has this article only now gone live and managed to stay online? Wikipedia, now entering its 20th year, has long been accused by various groups of having political biases. For example, Conservapedia was set up in 2006 to give evangelical Christians in the United States an encyclopedia better reflecting their religious worldview on evolution and climate change, with scientists widespread agreement on the factual basis of these issues deemed political.

Allegations of Wikipedias liberal bias have made headlines on Breitbart in recent years as the encyclopedia fought back against falsehoods pushed out by the Trump White House. Similar claims are even appearing in India, manifesting as claims of anti-Hinduism in debates about Prime Minister Narendra Modis nationalist policies that critics say unfairly target the countrys Muslim minority.

Pro-Israel groups like Saltzbergs have also long claimed that Wikipedia has a pro-Palestinian bent, but opposite claims of parity have also been voiced. For example, in Britain in 2018, a pro-Israel editor was accused of targeting critics of Israel and others in the British far-left in a case that was amplified by Russian media. These allegations went so far as to claim that the Wikipedia editor was a front for the British defense establishment if not the CIA.

We've got more newsletters we think you'll find interesting.

Please try again later.

The email address you have provided is already registered.

Anatomy of an analogy

The West Bank bantustans article was created on November 12. Two days later, it was nominated for deletion, on the basis of the claim that it was not really a new article but only a biased narrative already covered by, and part of, Israel and the apartheid analogy.

The article Israel and the apartheid analogy was opened in 2006. One of over 3,000 articles on the topic, this page too has faced countless edits and rewrites by the various camps active on the encylopedias coverage of the conflict.

There were no less than 10 attempts to delete the analogy article during its first four years of life. When it was created in late May 2006 it was called Israeli apartheid and in a testimony to Wikipedias political dynamics, by early June 2006 it was nominated for deletion for the first time. After it survived its first deletion debate, which also ended in a lack of consensus, its title was changed in a compromise to Allegations of Israeli apartheid.

By 2008, after eight additional attempts to have the article deleted by editors considered part of or close to the pro-Israel contingent on Wikipedia were thwarted, another debate was held. I suggest pursuing a rename and a rewrite, since its very, very clear that theres no consensus to delete, the administrator overseeing that discussion ruled.

By 2010, the article had stabilized and a stalemate of sorts between the different sides emerged: Instead of deciding on the validity of the comparison, the article focused on the very existence of the debate regarding the analogy.

Israel and the apartheid analogy is criticism of Israel charging that Israel has practiced a system akin to apartheid against Palestinians in its occupation of the West Bank. Some commentators extend the analogy to include treatment of Arab citizens of Israel, describing their status as second-class citizen, the current version of the analogy article says.

Edit wars on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have had a fundamental influence on how Wikipedia addresses contentious issues; for example, the practice of locking articles to public editing and permitting only editors with a username and certain level of Wikipedia experience to contribute. The result has been the emergence of two ideological camps, so-called pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian editors, who have been locked in what some describe as an editorial stalemate.

Indeed, even though the analogy article has remained extremely contentious over the past decade, all attempts to have it fundamentally changed have failed, including an allegedly technical debate in 2017 regarding a suggestion to retitle the page Israeli apartheid analogy, which pro-Israel editors claimed was an attempt to push the article into non-neutral territory.

I doubt there ever was a consensus on Israels apartheid status, says Federico Leva, another editor active in the debate. Wikipedia and its community dont take a position on something like is Israels occupation apartheid. We only describe what sources say, so the question is usually whether theres consensus that a certain summary of the sources is accurate/appropriate.

Now, this consensus regarding sources seems to be shifting.

Remember, the [bantustans] article is not about any particular analogy it is about describing the areas proposed for Palestinian sovereignty, and how that has evolved over time, says Onceawhile, the editor who opened the article. Part of the name debate may be technical is the word bantustan a proper noun referring only to South Africa, or has it become a common noun referring to entities with a reasonable level of similarity?

In the past, such claims were easily relegated to other articles; for example, those about areas A, B and C in the West Bank, which were set up by the Oslo Accords and offered Israel and the Palestinian Authority different levels of control of different parts of the West Bank.

The new article now claims: The West Bank bantustans, or West Bank cantons, figuratively described as the Palestine Archipelago, are the proposed noncontiguous enclaves for the Palestinians of the West Bank under a variety of U.S. and Israeli-led proposals to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

No single truth

The opening highlights how the increasingly permanent status of the areas once considered under temporary Israeli control serves as the justification for a new article. A telling example can be found in the article in a special section dedicated to Trumps peace plan, which calls for dividing the Palestinian state into five different areas. The section opens with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas claim that the plan would turn Palestine into swiss cheese.

According to Leva, one of the editors active in the debate, There is no single truth or historical consensus on such a giant topic yet, and there probably wont be for a long, long time. Any discussion of the topic is bound to be messy. The English Wikipedia merely reflects this cultural fact and cannot change it.

The article, in that sense, reflects a wider shift in consensus on Israels intentions: General claims made in the media, even in opinion pieces in Haaretz, are now permitted greater significance than perhaps was possible in the past. The article states: According to Haaretzs Chemi Shalev, in a speech marking the 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War, Netanyahu thus envisages not only that Palestinians in the West Bank will need Israeli permission to enter and exit their "homeland", which was also the case for the Bantustans, but that the IDF will be allowed to continue setting up roadblocks, arresting suspects and invading Palestinian homes, all in the name of "security needs"'.

In the past, such analyses would have been dismissed by pro-Israel editors claiming that Haaretz, Israels sole paper of record, is biased. But today, such arguments, supported by official Israeli statements and academic research, resonate as an accurate reading of the political reality. For example, other sources in the article are academic papers like a 2020 work on the one-state reality emerging from Israels policies and the peace plan as envisaged by Trump and his son-in-law adviser, Jared Kushner.

Together these sources highlight the increasingly open Israeli policy of striving for annexations in the West Bank.

According to the different editors, the deletion failed to gain the needed consensus mainly because the pro-Israel editors focused solely on the articles name.

As Leva puts it, Its possible that the users who supported the deletion will regroup, find an agreement on what article should contain this information, and reach a consensus on merging [West Bank bantustans] into it. The article may still be moved to another title. Im also sure that the discussion on what sources and language to use within the article will continue.

Indeed, as no consensus was reached on the articles existence, a new bid to have it renamed has been launched.

Saltzberg isnt optimistic. The consensus [on English Wikipedia] is still the same and this article proves it: anti-Israel! he says.

Since the antis have taken over the entire [Israeli-Palestinian] topic area, the 30/500 protection has allowed them to continue their fiefdom with impunity, he says, referring to the rule allowing participation only by editors with over 30 days and 500 edits under their belt. It is near impossible to create a new article if it in any way shows the Palestinians in a negative light, not Israel.

Onceawhile takes offense at claims that he is somehow anti-Israel or even that Wikipedia should reflect the two-sided nature of the debate regarding the conflict. Our work on Wikipedia is not, or at least should not be, a competition between two opposing factions, he says.

Wikipedia remains the worlds primary open source publication on Israel and Palestine, and by working with those we disagree with we are trying to create a neutral picture of the situation. Each argument removes barriers between the two communities. In the case of this discussion on the West Bank bantustans, even the most ardent Israeli propagandist will have learnt something about the conditions of the Palestinians, and the most ardent Palestinian propagandist will have learnt that much of history happens by accident rather than design.

Read more here:
On Wikipedia, Israel is losing the battle against the word 'apartheid' - Haaretz.com

We live in a post-truth world where the facts often get lost in the cacophony of emotional wails and motivated narratives. One website which has occupied the drivers seat in the information-warfare era is Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become the agent of misinformation and propaganda. In a post-truth world where facts are relegated to the right-wing imagination and the Left narrative is considered as the Gospel truth, Wikipedia reigns supreme. OpIndia coverage of the Wikipedia misrepresentation of facts started right after the Delhi Riots 2020, where Islamists coordinated and executed violence across the national capital.

After OpIndias extensive coverage of the inherent bias of the platform, we also interviewed the co-founder of Wikipedia, who explained in detail why the platform is a cause lost to Lefts propaganda. Almost vindicating everything that Larry Senger told us later about the functioning of Wikipedia, the platform had blocked OpIndia from being referenced in Wikipedia almost immediately after our Delhi Riots coverage and the reportage on how Wikipedia editors are heavily biased towards the Left.

The Left was not too happy with OpIndia and it was evident. Jimmy Wales himself went on a tirade on Twitter, but more on that later. Since the Delhi Riots have become a propaganda flash-point for the Left, sympathetic media has now decided to presumably pick up the issue to ensure that Wikipedias credibility, which has been on the slide, is maintained, if not improved.

Presumably to that end, Caravan Magazine, that was recently counting the caste of the soldiers who laid their life down at Pulwama in defence of the nation, reached out to OpIndia saying that they were doing a story on OpIndias coverage of Wikipedia and wanted to ask us certain questions.

The Left has not exactly covered itself in glory, considering how they conveniently cherry-pick facts and misquote the people and organisations that they wish to malign. Hence, OpIndias responses to Caravan Magazine are being reproduced here in the spirit of transparency and honesty, tenets long abandoned by not just Wikipedia, but also the Left media that it seems to rely on heavily.

The questions asked by Caravan Magazine are in bold, and OpIndias response to them follow each question.

OpIndia started its coverage of how Wikipedia was biased in its coverage of the Delhi anti-Hindu Riots 2020 on the 26th of February. It is pertinent to remember that the Delhi Riot itself started on the 24th and lasted in the wee morning of 26th February.

Here are some of the issues we raised regarding the Delhi Riots page of Wikipedia.

Our detailed first report can be read here.

Since repeated attempts of getting the page rectified did not work, it was on March 2nd that an OpIndia report investigating who was editor DBXray, was published.

In the report, we relied on publicly available information and at no point was personal information not on the public domain was released. Some of the information, like the Editors real name, was already published in a Reddit thread at the time. OpIndia embarked on a journey to verify publicly available information, much of it, was already in the Wikipedia archive and his Facebook profile.

Interestingly, the anonymity of Wikipedia editors is a part of the problem that Caravan, at least by the tone of the question, seems to be defending. Wikipedia editors are increasingly functioning as Mainstream Media editors where they decide what information should be included in an article and which information should not be included. No longer is Wikipedia a purely publicly sourced platform, as was proved during the Delhi Riots fiasco where the page was locked and peoples counters were dismissed with derision. When the Editors of Wikipedia behave like MSM editors, they should not be granted the luxury of anonymity. What is even more interesting is that while the editors of Wikipedia mirror Left editors, who deride anonymity and consider it a yardstick on which authenticity should be measured, they are more protective of their own identity while peddling the very same agenda.

OpIndia believes that any editor, whether on Wikipedia or otherwise, who decides which fact is worth communicating to the public and which isnt, based on their own world-view and narrative, does not deserve the shield of anonymity. Just like you have the means to reach out to the Editor of OpIndia to pose questions to us about our coverage, editors of Wikipedia who are now functioning in the same realm, have no right to claim anonymity while spreading falsehoods about sensitive and important events of India.

While Caravan Magazine uses the word dox to define what OpIndia did, thankfully, reputation does not indicate that it is, in fact, the truth. There was no attempt made by OpIndia to compromise his personal details like his address, phone number etc. The information that was investigated by OpIndia was publicly available information available on Wikipedia and his own Facebook profile. We take exception to this being called doxxing since Caravan Magazine seems to believe that being protected while spreading falsehood was his right. It was not.

Further, unlike the Left, OpIndia has no documented strategy to investigate more editors. In our coverage, if we feel that other editors need to be investigated, we will take that decision on a case to case basis. However, if the question posed is inquiring whether we will stop investigating Wikipedia, its antecedents or its Editors, the answer is certainly in the negative.

OpIndia again takes exception to the Caravan Magazine journalist calling the investigation doxxing. While we put this on record, we are sure that in their article, Caravan will use this word since we abandoned our expectations from the portal a long time ago.

Instead of OpIndia opining on its blacklisting from OpIndia, we would like to add some quotes by Larry Sanger, who is the co-founder of Wikipedia on how the platform really functions:

There are several such quotes and explanation by the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, which if the journalist or the magazine really wants to understand the issue instead of doing a shoddy hit-job, could go through.

Here is the link to his interview by OpIndia.

We dont agree with the adjectives used or the characterization of our work, but we plead guilty to treating journalists the same way journalists treat others. Celebrity journalists are often the object of our articles, which upsets the Omert that is there exists in the media where they dont take potshots at each other. This Omert was broken for at least Arnab Goswami by the rest of the media, while we broke this code for entire media years back.

Perhaps you could read an example of that in this article, where Caravan Magazine allowed blatant lies to be published against Arnab Goswami without due diligence or basic journalistic investigation:

Anvay Naik suicide case for which Arnab Goswami was arrested: Letters exchanged, the closure report, and unanswered questions

A 5000-word email was sent to Jimmy Wales on the 5th of March after Mr Wales had, messaging OpIndia editor Nupur Sharma personally, claimed that he can be an ally in solving issues and that the editor must help him with people who were questioning him on Twitter. No help was offered, however, a detailed email was sent to him focussing on the misrepresentations in the Delhi Riots page. Other than his strange rant on Twitter, we have not received a response from him yet.

OpIndias coverage of Wikipedia has increased not after the ban on OpIndia but after its biased article as far as the Delhi Riots 2020 is concerned, which was a case investigated extensively by OpIndia.

I understand why Caravan Magazine would want to impugn the ban as a motive, but it must understand that OpIndia works differently from the Left media.

Here is a list of the articles OpIndia has published with regards to Wikipedia after we reported on its bias as far as the Delhi Riots were concerned:

Ranging from child rape videos to an FBI complaint about paedophilic content, changing history of the Noakhali genocide and a global bias against conservatives, OpIndia has covered a range of issues that ails Wikipedia.

We would like to understand from Caravan if the magazine believes that these issues do not deserve coverage simply because Wikipedia seems to pander to the ideology that Caravan follows.

Further, Wikipedia, for most issues, is the first result that Google throws up. Any bias or misinformation in that regard becomes crucial since the platform seems to be re-writing history from a Left prism and furthering blatant misinformation as we speak. Perhaps issues like the truth, propriety, transparency, an accurate representation of history and current events etc are not issues that the Left likes to concern themselves with, but is certainly something OpIndia holds dear and will continue to report thereof.

See the original post here:
Caravan Magazine asked us about our coverage on Wikipedia and its Left bias Here is our detailed response - OpIndia