This is just something that I have been thinking about in the past day or two - does Wikipedia favour negative comments over positive ones?

If you go and look at most REAL LIFE encyclopaedias, they will have, on every living person, on every dead person, on every company and organisation, pretty much nothing but purely lovely glowing reports on all of them, from a purely positive point of view. The exceptions are enemies in war, enemies of whichever country/group that is writing the organisation (political enemies I mean), and convicted criminals, in which case they are always written from the point of view that their own government will agree with.

Now, go over to Wikipedia, and the point of view is pretty much completely the opposite to this. If someone who is the CEO of an organisation tries to write an article about their own organisation, it is labelled as a "conflict of interest" and often it is deleted. While on the flip side if a disgruntled former employee or someone who had a dispute with the company decides to write the article, then they are welcomed. And in most cases articles about companies, organisations, and at least until recently even living persons, were primarily written from a negative point of view, unless they were a Wikipedia insider. Even when articles start off nice, they soon end up being nasty.

I mean if you had an article in World Book Encyclopaedia, about you as an individual, or about your company, you'd be proud of it. You wouldn't have to read it to be proud of it, and boast to your friends about it. Yet in many cases if you have an article on Wikipedia, you are nervous about it, if not completely angry about it and wanting it deleted. Yet so many people get banned just for trying to correct these errors, for trying to say that hey they don't want to be perceived in this negative light.

I mean let's face facts that all of those encyclopaedias are biased - World Book, New World, Britannica, the whole lot of them are biased. But they are still useful as references, because they are fundamentally true. What is wrong with writing a purely positive point of view? What is wrong with being careful not to libel others? What is wrong with, in a professional product, actually giving a shit about what relevant laws say?

The really strange thing is that in the place where you would expect there to be negative views, there is nothing. You would expect for there to be some kind of discussion about conspiracy theories, with all sorts of negative things, but they are, time and again, deleted, or changed in to something entirely different. On Wikipedia I was asked to write something about S11, who was an organisation that was for about 2 days after 9/11 one of the leading suspects for the case. I wrote it as a "conspiracy theory" which was later proven false. It has now been changed completely so that not only doesn't it provide any links that prove that they were suspected, but it has now deleted all mention of it, all redirects, all disambiguation, anything to suggest that anyone had ever even briefly thought that they were related. And yet this is a group of people who received death threats in relation to 9/11! The anti-conspiracy theory lunatics just simply go overboard, when they won't even allow discussion of something that was always written that it was a conspiracy theory that was later proven false. The organisation was based on a protest a year before, to the day, about anti-globalisation, which was what World Trade Center stood for, and were linked with other groups that protested anti-globalisation at the World Trade Center. Certainly enough to give a lot of people who were angry about 9/11 and looking for people to blame enough ammunition to want to kill them over it. And yet Wikipedia insists that they won't even mention it.

I don't even understand why Wikipedia refuses to mention things like that. Or why, in many of the more well known crime stories, they refuse to note prominent ideas as to what really happened, even in cases where they are agreed with by the majority of people. It seems like they are happy to do that to some limited extent with American crime stories, but none from any other country (perhaps because of an America-centric point of view, where they don't consider that any points of view from anywhere else matters).

It just seems odd anyway that they favour these negative comments, and push for a certain point of view, that is basically the complete opposite of what any real life encyclopaedia would want.

I mean that is what gives these real life encyclopaedias integrity. Does it stand to reason, therefore, that it is this which takes all of Wikipedia's credibility away?

Actually since now people are doubting the official 9/11 story, your conspiracy theory about S11 holds merit.

What people? Those like this WP editor? Or are there those with some grounding in logic?

Oh, I thought you were talking about on talk pages. This doesn't seem to be the case.