> This reflects how the people related to this topics are just more knowledgeable (about the topic) and willing to cooperate to the Wikipedia than other groups.
Since there are large groups of people that can't regularly access Wikipedia or have limited resources to edit it for other reasons I'd say that this isn't necessarily a valid conclusion.
I lean slightly towards the deletionist's point of view. Bias on Wikipedia is often only considered within the scope of individual articles -- that articles may use a biased set of sources or are written in a way that represents a non-neutral POV -- but I think that the selection of articles itself has a similar ability to represent a biased view, perhaps some form of publication bias.
What is included and excluded in Wikipedia unfortunately is highly representative of the views and opinions of its most active and opinionated editors. There is no policy on what should be included or not that is clear enough to prevent editor wars.
Since there are large groups of people that can't regularly access Wikipedia or have limited resources to edit it for other reasons I'd say that this isn't necessarily a valid conclusion.
I lean slightly towards the deletionist's point of view. Bias on Wikipedia is often only considered within the scope of individual articles -- that articles may use a biased set of sources or are written in a way that represents a non-neutral POV -- but I think that the selection of articles itself has a similar ability to represent a biased view, perhaps some form of publication bias.
What is included and excluded in Wikipedia unfortunately is highly representative of the views and opinions of its most active and opinionated editors. There is no policy on what should be included or not that is clear enough to prevent editor wars.