Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article lists examples of Bias in Wikipedia, related to Anti-Christianity and favoritism to other religions/atheism:

  1. A Wikipedia editor Qworty devoted 13,000 edits to cleaning up articles on pro-pagan topics before being permanently banned[1] and then outed as Robert Clark Young by the website salon.com.[2] The failure to crack down on his work earlier drew criticism from the pagan website wildhunt.org.[3]
  2. Wikipedia's article on You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International, the youth rock ministry of Bradlee Dean, is an attack page which was criticized in a WND column.[4] In response, Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder, demanded a retraction regarding his past as "a pornography trafficker". Instead, WND published detailed documentation of Wales' Boomis pornography website.[5]
  3. Articles on the American Family Association[2] and the Family Research Council[3] call them hate groups based on opinions of the Southern Poverty Law Center on same-sex marriage, but the article on the Southern Poverty Law Center[4] does not have similar criticism of it.
  4. Wikipedia's article on Extremism specifically points out Christians are commonly called extreme, "It is also not uncommon to necessarily define distinctions regarding extremist Christians as opposed to moderate Christians, as in countries such as the United States" [5]
  5. The body of the Islamic terrorism[6] page opens with "Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase while the body of the article "Christianity and violence"[7] page opened with Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side."
  6. Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"[8] a term that is an idiotic mockery of the Christian faith. Wikipedia calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-Christian mockery. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
  7. Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but Wikipedia's Christianity article does not mention Christian apologetics.
  8. Wikipedia has millions of obscure entries, but deletes or omits entries about conservatives and/or Christians. For example, conservative congressional candidate Ruth McClung has no entry at all on Wikipedia, despite being far more notable than many of its entries; likewise, broadcaster Al Gross's entry[9] has been tagged for deletion despite having a notable and continuing career in broadcasting.
  9. Wikipedia's article on Westminster Theological Seminary demonstrates its anti-Christian bias when it states "with the vision of continuing the theological tradition of Princeton Theological Seminary in a militant and explicitly polemical manner, from which the Westminster founders felt Princeton was departing."
  10. It's apparently okay to cast doubt on well-known evangelical Christian's claims of being former atheists, as was recently done repeatedly to Kirk Cameron's Wikipedia article[10][11][12], but similar edits regarding claims made by famous atheists of being former Christians would never be tolerated (e.g. PZ Myers' Wikipedia article[13]).
  11. Wikipedia's article on the French Revolution censors the central role atheism played in causing the mass murders of the Reign of Terror.[14]
  12. Wikipedia omits an entry on Biblical scientific foreknowledge, and instead ignores the foreknowledge with a pathetically abbreviated section entitled "History and advocacy" under "Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts."[15]
  13. Wikipedia's article on Thanksgiving is a clearcut attempt to mitigate the meaning of Thanksgiving; from giving thanks to God as the holiday is meant to be, and instead changing history by claiming the day has become a politically correct "secular holiday." Wikipedia's political correctness is an attempt to change truth in order to appeal more closely with atheists.
  14. Isaac Newton translated parts of the Bible, and considered this effort to be the source of his scientific insights, yet Wikipedia's 10,000-word entry completely omits this.[16]
  15. Wikipedia uses anti-religious examples for its entry on "argumentum ad populum" (Latin for claiming that something is true if it is popular). Conspicuously absent from Wikipedia's examples are atheistic arguments based on popular opinion, such as misleading people into thinking the theory of evolution must be true if others accept it.
  16. Wikipedia's article about Bernhard Riemann, perhaps the greatest modern mathematician, contains little discussion of Riemann's faith and tries to downplay his fundamentalism as though it were merely a passing interest as a teenager.[17][18]
  17. In its entry on the heavily Christian Gothic architecture,[19] Wikipedia credits Islam before Christianity, does not even mention Christianity until after more than 1500 words, and then does not mention Christianity again.
  18. Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that American atheists give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis even when church giving is not counted for theists.[20] In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive. Wikipedia's article on atheism also fails to mention that Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.[21] In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that atheism is a causal factor for suicide.
  19. Wikipedia's entry about the Christian martyr at Columbine refuses to admit that she was murdered by an atheist as she was expressing her faith in God, as confirmed by multiple witnesses.[22][23] Wikipedia is dominated by atheistic public school students who would be particularly biased against this truth.
    • Version of May 12, 2009:
      Initial reports suggested that one of the assailants, either Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold, asked Bernall if she believed in God moments before fatally shooting her. She was reported to have answered "yes". [6]
  20. Despite extensive evidence for the existence of God, Wikipedia lists theism as an example of the so-called Tinkerbell effect. [24]
  21. Wikipedia contains no information on the link between atheism and obesity or the New Atheism leadership's problems with being overweight.
  22. Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but Wikipedia's Christianity article does not mention Christian apologetics.
  23. The Wikipedia entry on baraminology (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it is based on the Holy Bible.[25]
  24. A user named Richard Dawkins apparently edited his own article on Wikipedia,[26] and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating Wikipedia's favoritism towards liberals, it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)[27] for anybody to confront this well-known atheist for this conflict of interest, despite being against Wikipedia's own rules.
  25. Wikipedia's entry for Johnny Appleseed, a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.[28]
  26. Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters[29] and its champion Zach Johnson,[30] who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his faith in Jesus Christ for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attribution to Jesus Christ was included, but with the Wikipedia trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.[31]
  27. Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."[32] At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."[33]
  28. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[34] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[35] But no credible historian makes such a claim.
  29. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.
  30. Wikipedia's article on Martin Luther King Jr. is extensive. There is little doubt that King was known for civil rights. However, Wikipedia fails to recognize King's main 'Influence', Jesus Christ. King's life was Jesus from day one, his entire life was Christ inspired. As Dr. King Jr said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." [7]
  31. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.[36]
  32. Wikipedia editors who are agnostic or atheistic outnumber Christian editors 2:1.[37] This make them nearly 8 times as atheistic as America (in a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know). Also, a Wikimedia page surveying the religions of Wikipedia editors, showed a greater number of atheists using pages to ridicule Christianity.[38]
  33. The articles on both Saul Alinsky and his book, Rules for Radicals make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."[39][40]
  34. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[41] But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[42] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[43]
  35. The Wikipedia article on elopement appears to make light of the tradition of marriage and weddings.

References

  1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797. Retrieved on July 9, 2013.
  2. Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia. salon.com (May 17, 2013). Retrieved on July 9, 2013.
  3. Anti-Pagan Wikipedia Editor Outed by Salon.com (May 22, 2013). Retrieved on July 9, 2013.
  4. Who's afraid of Bradlee Dean. WND (December 14, 2012). Retrieved on December 26, 2012.
  5. Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder. WND (December 17, 2012). Retrieved on December 26, 2012.
  6. Islamic terrorism. Wikipedia (January 18, 2010). Retrieved on December 26, 2012.
  7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_violence&oldid=526775071
  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ
  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gross_%28broadcaster%29
  10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=262633707&oldid=262591086
  11. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263109644&oldid=263063442
  12. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263670595&oldid=263666117
  13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz_myers
  14. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
  15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_foreknowledge_in_sacred_texts
  16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton . Newton also felt that everyone else who translated the Bible were also able to have insights.
  17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann
  18. http://www.answers.com/topic/bernhard-riemann
  19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture
  20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
  21. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
  22. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall
  23. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm
  24. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tinkerbell_effect&oldid=390319255
  25. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/baraminology
  26. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins
  27. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins
  28. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed
  29. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament
  30. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732
  31. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson
  32. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")
  33. Ibid.
  34. http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm
  35. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
  36. Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[1]
  37. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_religion
  38. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion
  39. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
  40. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
  41. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm
  42. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood
  43. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark
Personal tools