Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article describes the Bias in Wikipedia, related to smears against Conservapedia:

  1. On Wikipedia's article which lists most online encyclopedias an edit done from an anonymous IP address defamed Conservapedia by labeling it Far-right [1] This edit lasted for close to 2 months until it was finally removed by a conservative editor. The label has been put back in,[2] and it persists even after being discussed at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.[3] Three citations are given, but none of them say that Conservapedia is far right.[4]
  2. Wikipedia often treats conservative figures and sites with contempt, characteristic of the liberal double standard. Compare, for example, Wikipedia's smear of Conservapedia[5] with its straightforward description of Scholarpedia.[6]
  3. Wikipedia cites vulgar blogs and liberal rants as though they are encyclopedic authorities. For example, its entry about Conservapedia claims that "[s]everal articles on the site have reputations for bias and inaccuracy,"[7] but its citations for that falsehood consist of a vulgar blog, a liberal rant, and an article that takes a neutral position. None of Wikipedia's three "authorities" make any statement about the "reputation" of Conservapedia as Wikipedia claims.
  4. Wikipedia's entry about Conservapedia contains four unsupported smears in its very first sentence,[8] and conceals from readers how Conservapedia offers free online courses for teenagers.[9] The result of this bias by Wikipedia, which raises money as a charity, is the concealing and demonizing of a free learning resource that Wikipedia itself does not offer.
  5. Wikipedia promoted to good status, or GA, its smear entry about Conservapedia, in which Wikipedia claims that Conservapedia "has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies."[10] When Conservapedia pointed out the lack of support (which violates stated Wikipedia policy) for this false smear of Conservapedia, Wikipedia simply replaced its prior cite with a new one that also failed to support its smear. After this was pointed out, Wikipedia simply changed its sentence to try to smear Conservapedia in another way.
  6. Wikipedia falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has "come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies."[11] In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia's former cite to a New York Times article for support actually criticizes Wikipedia because it "does dwell on the idea that 'others' have 'criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'"[12] Wikipedia persists in asserting that falsehood about Conservapedia.
  7. Wikipedia often smears conservatives with falsehoods, using references that do not support its claim. For example, Wikipedia falsely claims that "children" wrote most of the initial entries on Conservapedia,[13] but Wikipedia's references for that claim do not even mention "children". The average age of contributors on Conservapedia is likely older than on Wikipedia, so its smear is particularly hypocritical.
  8. For a long time Wikipedia led with a falsehood in describing Conservapedia: "Conservapedia is a wiki based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and Young Earth creationism."[14] That was defamatory in attempting to smear Conservapedia in front of Wikipedia's evolutionist audience. Wikipedia also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the Conservapedia and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation.
  9. Wikipedia displays pervasive bias in making liberal statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about Conservapedia.[15] Wikipedia states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the liberal bias on Wikipedia.
  10. For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, Wikipedia classified its critics, including Conservapedia, as "Fanatics and Special Interests."[16]
  11. Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."[17] But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.[18] Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies! After this criticism was posted here, Wikipedia removed the said citation but replaced it with a few other biased citations.
  12. Conservapedia allows greater and easier copying of its materials than Wikipedia does, but Wikipedia's entry about Conservapedia claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."[19] And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia![20]
  13. Initially, in December 2006, a Wikipedia administrator named "Nearly Headless Nick" (the signature nickname for Wikipedia user "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington"[21]) deleted an entry about Conservapedia, following a discussion on the "Articles for deletion" section in which a horde of Wikipedia editors demanded and obtained deletion, claiming that the site failed a "notability guideline for websites".[22] Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[23] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.
  14. Wikipedia smears conservative groups with prominent "Criticism and controversy" sections,[24] usually featuring name-calling by obscure groups, but Wikipedia flatters liberal groups by downplaying what it euphemistically entitles as "Controversial stances."[25]
  15. Wikipedia does not allow the statement "Conservapedia has become a widely-edited source of criticism of Wikipedia."
  16. In 2011 Wikipedia User Σ organized systematic vandalism of Conservapedia using the English Wikipedia IRC. This only came to light when he was nominated to be a Wikipedia Administrator and users there debated whether his actions were a good or bad thing to do.[26]
  17. In discussions at Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, one editor argued, "You know, conservapedia tends to welcome fringe opinions derived from far-right op-ed statements. You should try there instead."[27] to which another replied, "The most egregious part, is that editors refuse to find evidence to support their claims and resort to calls for the discussion to stop or for established editors to leave the project and go to conservapedia. This is not helpful."

References

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_online_encyclopedias&action=historysubmit&diff=326381379&oldid=315763628
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conservapedia/Archive_22#Far_right
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Conservapedia
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AConservapedia&diff=464373198&oldid=464364820
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarpedia
  7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
  9. See Conservapedia:Index
  10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#cite_ref-Clarke_6-0
  11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
  12. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/conservapedia-the-word-says-it-all/ (emphasis added)
  13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
  14. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=160604712 (emphasis added).
  15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
  16. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests
  17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
  18. http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1910
  19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
  20. http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501
  21. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington
  22. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conservapedia
  23. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
  24. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Criticism_and_controversy
  25. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Controversial_stances
  26. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&oldid=516746349
  27. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_6#Neutral
Personal tools