Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conspiracy theories

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article lists examples of Bias in Wikipedia, related to conspiracy theories.

  1. In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama The Path to 9/11, the page contains a section titles "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama Blocking the Path to 9/11 [2], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the MSM liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has kept it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near-future. [3]
  2. The Wikipedia article on the Trilateral Commission makes fun of conspiracy theories instead of presenting them factually with references on both sides of the argument.
  3. The Wikipedia article "List of consipracy theories" ridicules and dismisses as "conspiracy theories" more hypotheses advanced by conservative thinkers than hypotheses advanced by left wing thinkers. The editor(s) of this page have an obvious liberal bias that hold in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, Water Fluoridation has been opposed by many conservative groups due to concerns about health impacts as well as a question of personal freedom and limits on the proper scope of government. Yet, the Wikipedia list dismisses these views as a "conspiracy theory" that draws on "distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science". In another example, peak oil is a theory advanced by many conservatives including geologist T. Boone Pickens. Yet, the page dismisses it, noting "There are theories that the 'peak oil' concept is a fraud concocted by the oil industries to increase prices amid concerns about future supplies."[1]
  4. The Wikipedia article "The Plan (Washington, D.C.)" is one of the conspiracy theories included on the official Wikipedia conspiracy list. However, the article cites few sources supporting the existence of the conspiracy to replace black residents with whites in Washington DC and no sources that refute the existence of the conspiracy.
  5. On August 16, 2010, Julian Assange said "there are frequent attempts by military apologists and others to manipulate our Wikipedia pages" (referring to the Wikileaks and Juina Assange Wikipedia articles.)[2]
  6. Wikipedia has once again deleted all content on the North American Union [4]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
  7. Wikipedia's last sentence on Human Life International claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a conservative group. But this was approved by Wikipedia and remained for over a month.[3]
  8. As of August 15, 2016, the article in En.wikipedia ("Murder of Seth Rich") had a motion to delete template on it, delete on grounds of not being notable, although at one point it was getting 1500 daily views. It was so allegedly unnotable that a strong debate was generated there on the talk page and on the Delete Articles section, where editors essentially "voted" to Keep vs. Delete, allegedly on the grounds of non-notability.[4] Among the arguments for deleting the article there was a repetitious reference to the talking point "conspiracy theory," though the article said nothing at all about a conspiracy theory. Also, as of August 17, 2016, the Wiki editor who started this article, was officially blocked by an administrator. His talk page said: "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia."[5] As of August 21, 2016, the motion to delete was denied on grounds of no consensus, although a derogatory false comment was attached attacking some of those who argued in favor of "Keep." Soon after, the article was summarily locked down until August 27, 2016, and a request for mediation was filed. Despite the fact that the article was not deleted, several details about the murder were deleted from the article by the same editors who advocated for deletion,[6] leaving the article a rather short stub article. And as of August 24, 2016, there was a continuing debate and vote on the talk page of that article as to "Should this article mention the fact that WikiLeaks offered $20,000 in reward money for providing information regarding the perpetrator of this crime?" along with this template warning: "Template:Ds/talk notice," which warned: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions." On September 18, 2016, less than a month after the previous motion to delete failed, a second motion to delete was started by the same editors who tried to delete it the first time, but once again, on October 4, the motion to delete was denied, as there was "no consensus."[7]
  9. The Wikipedia article of Alex Jones[8] describes the InfoWars host as follows: "Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio show host, documentary filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist. He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin, Texas, which airs on the Genesis Communications Network and shortwave radio station WWCR across the United States and online. His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled a fake news website." Although InfoWars has over 3 million subscribers and was more accurate that the New York Times (currently on the verge of bankruptcy) in predicting the outcome of the 2016 election, InfoWars has been irrevocably labeled as a "fake news website" in the introductory paragraph about Alex Jones. Any attempts to alter this description on Wikipedia will be met with swift resistance from a cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint Jones as an illegitimate crackpot. While attempting to challenge the claim of InfoWars as a "fake news website," User:Boab was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia (by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights and User:Ian.thomson) for "Disruptive editing: Pushing fringe theories and displaying a belligerent BATTLEGROUND approach to disputes."[9]