Wikipedia:No, we are not here to right great wrongs

Wikipedia is a very inclusive place by definition, having instances in almost every language (of these, the English Wikipedia is the most popular). That said, systemic bias does exist on Wikipedia and is a problem. However, some more extreme perspectives (such as WP:YESRGW) call for the righting of great wrongs in the "name of neutrality". This leads to tendentious editing.

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.

Shortcut

WP:NORGWWP:NORGW

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia is first and foremost a repository for notable, verifiable, and neutral knowledge, not an activism hub. Social activism is an honorable cause to champion, but Wikipedians are allowed to not care about such causes and focus on the topics they like. Editors who do champion that cause should still take WP:NPOV into account.

Your priorities are not everyone's priorities

YESRGW calls for proportionate representation of reliable sources. This often leads to cherry-picking. Reliable sources should be taken into consideration based in the reliability of the source; sources that fall under WP:RS are not a monolith and some are more reliable than others. Not representing a huge category of sources proportionately is not going against the spirit of Wikipedia.
YESRGW also calls editors complicit in "great wrongs" if they choose to ignore them. Sometimes, editors simply do not care. Not caring is not going against the spirit of Wikipedia.
YESRGW takes WP:NPOV to apply across the creation of articles, when it is actually applied to the content of those articles. No, you are not going against the spirit of WP:NPOV if you choose to write an article about the Fourth Crusade instead of about the Underground Railroad. You can't force a group of editors to change their interests.
However, you are going against the spirit of WP:NPOV if you remove content criticizing Columbus's exploitative behavior, for example, from his article, which is a very valid point in favor of righting wrongs that WP:YESRGW does not seem to mention.

That being said, this essay is not meant to push an "anti-woke" or otherwise socially conservative viewpoint, but rather intended to clear up what Wikipedia is actually for and what certain principles actually mean. Editors should strive to bring a neutral viewpoint to articles that are unfairly biased (in comparison to reliable sources). This applies to both articles with an undue socially liberal stance and articles with an undue socially conservative stance.

This is not ProleWiki

ProleWiki and Conservapedia are two extremely, extremely partisan wikis (the former is far-left and the latter is far-right). Predictably enough, both hate Wikipedia, which they claim is controlled by "the imperialist/globalist liberal elite".

Neither of them cite reliable sources (or, sometimes, any source at all) and repeatedly push false claims. A neutral point of view refers to the consensus view of all reliable sources that can be cited, not a "politically centrist" perspective. Social activism can definitely be a factor in the types of articles you edit, the work you do on Wikipedia, and the tone of your contributions, but you should still remember to stay within the bounds of this fundamental Wikipedia policy when editing.

Knowledge elite...?

It is true that Wikipedians have, in general, more knowledge than the average person. However, Wikipedians have invested significant time and effort into accquiring this knowledge, and their efforts should not be dismissed as simply coming to them automatically from being in a position of privilege. No billionaires, for example, are known Wikipedia editors, and only a few partisan personalities (we're talking about you, Anthonydevolder) have ever edited. Wikipedians come here with a passion for (mostly) particular topics like computing, cars, classical music, politics, or history, and attempting to force their efforts solely towards the upliftment of disenfranchised groups in particular will probably just make them avoid you and your cause.

The use of the term knowledge elite implies that we are hoarding our knowledge, and the tools we use to create it, from the masses. We are doing the opposite. Most people are just not interested. It is a sheltered perspective to think that the average disenfranchised struggling person in poverty has any desire to edit Wikipedia. This is a hobby that many of us do for our enjoyment and fulfillment. We do not owe anybody corrective action. Many of us do not consider ourselves global citizens and do not feel obligated to act as such.

Is acting in favor of what we term "wrong" biased behaviour?

This stance has led to issues where editors take very "charitable" interpretations of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:COMMONNAME, eventually resulting in certain Wikipedia articles being extremely anomalous and rigid to change, via cherry-picking RS in the name of righting a wrong - like Twitter keeping the name Twitter instead of changing it to X (social network) after the world has moved on.

Final statement

Aiming to promote the visibility and participation of minority, disenfranchised, and under-represented groups is an admirable cause that is well worth championing. Disparaging other editors for not doing the same is not. We are stewards of neutral, encyclopedic knowledge first and foremost and do not have "innate responsibilities as Wikipedians" to focus our efforts towards social activism and equitable representation.