Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
William Dembski

This article lists examples of Bias in Wikipedia, related to evolution and science:

  1. Wikipedia's entry on the starlight problem is a typically atheistic distortion,[1] omitting that light appears to older than the age of the universe under atheistic models as well as biblical explanations, and that the expansion of the universe can explain this anomaly under either theory.
  2. Wikipedia's article on liberal hero, proud atheist and purveyor of science Neil deGrasse Tyson was purged of his numerous publicly stated fabrications. He constantly targets people that disagree with Global Warming and mocks politicians that have Christian viewpoints.[2]
  3. Wikipedia falsely states that there is "precise agreement"[3] between the data for PSR B1913+16 and predictions of the General Theory of Relativity, when in fact the data are unmistakably different from the theoretical prediction, no data have been released since 2003 (perhaps due to such divergence), and even the authors of the study admit continuing imprecision by saying that "it seems unlikely that this test of relativistic gravity will be improved significantly."[4]
  4. Wikipedia has separate articles on many small wikis, for instance, LGBT History Project with a WikiFactor of 6, but does not have an article on CreationWiki with a WikiFactor of 45. Articles on CreationWiki are repeatedly deleted.
  5. The "Pioneer anomaly" contradicts both the theory of relativity and Newtonian gravity, but the Wikipedia article describes it as a potential defect for only Newtonian gravity.[5]
  6. Wikipedia omits that there are serious contradictions within and objections to the Theory of Relativity, instead presenting it as scientific gospel. (Example of contradictions and objections needed.)[6]
  7. Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the theory of evolution, such as Dr. William Dembski, whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by liberal critics.[7] For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.[7] In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.[8] Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
  8. Wikipedia's article on dinosaurs contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the best of the public.[9] Additionally, for a period of time in 2016, the Wikipedia articles for Answers in Genesis and Creation Museum called the substantiated view "erroneous".[10][11] The wording was deleted from the articles by a bot when an image to which the wording was attached was deleted.[12][13]
  9. Wikipedia's entry on the Scopes trial downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury only to have them come to a guilty verdict."[14][15]
  10. On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information[16] from the Wikipedia entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.[17] The editor then predicted on Conservapedia that the liberal bias would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.[18]
  11. Wikipedia displays a similar bias against the Institute for Creation Research and its affiliated graduate school—or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the ICR Graduate School, first in California and now in Texas, relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.[19][20][21]
  12. Wikipedia has an extensive entry on "Creation myth".[22] Describing Creationism as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage Christians, and although the Evolution satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".
  13. Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it.
  14. Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[23] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[24] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.[25] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that.
  15. Edits to include facts against Evolution are almost immediately censored. Even edits that do not appear to criticize creationism and falsely portray evolution as scientific fact are removed. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.
  16. Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,[26] Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.[27] Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. Gresham's Law reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
    The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
  17. The Wikipedia entry for the Piltdown Man omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
  18. The Wikipedia entry for the book "Signature in the Cell" by Stephen Meyer, is heavily slanted to discussing various critics of the book. The one mention of a favorable reviewer is accompanied by a list of those who objected to the reviewer. This is then followed by along list providing quotes from those who reviewed the book negatively, including one reviewer who by his own admission had not even read the book. Any attempts to add in balanced comments regarding the critics, or references to any of the numerous favorable reviews of the book, or to point out the published responses of Meyer to the criticisms of the book are immediately censored.
  19. The unofficial evolutionist cabal continues to control any and all pages covering or related to evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism, and they freely engage in edit-warring without fear of being blocked due to several editors helping each other subvert the "3 revert rule" and the help of admins who are biased to their side. Non-evolutionists are described with the non-referenced, non-neutral term "dogmatically"[28][29] and ID advocates are called "intelligent design creationists" despite the fact that neither they nor Creationists consider themselves alike.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36]
  20. Wikipedia's entry on the intelligent design court decision in Dover[37] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[38] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[39]
  21. In the article for flood geology,[40] the section containing evidence in favor of a global flood has the header "Evidence cited to support a global flood"[41] while the section containing evidence against it has the header "Evidence against a global flood."[42] Attempts to balance this disparity are met with quick reversions with excuses such as "I don't see this as an improvement"[43] and appeals referencing the so-called "scientific community" (i.e. the "scientific consensus").[44] Additionally, in a recent edit, Hrafn (one of the "usual suspects" who gang up and protect their preferred version of evolution and Creation articles) revealed his unabashed bias by reverting an edit with the explanation "all creationists are WP:FRINGE/'cracked pot[s].'"[45]
  22. Wikipedia's article on cold fusion[46] presents it as a continuing controversy. Liberals hope that cold fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts. Cold fusion experiments are actually widely discredited. Wikipedia also presents the widely-discredited [47] Hydrino theory [48] as a possible energy source so that politically incorrect sources of power such as coal and nuclear fission seem less necessary.
  23. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."[49] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".[50] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.[51]
  24. Wikipedia's entry on Richard Sternberg has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed intelligent design paper that he reviewed.[52] In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
  25. Wikipedia has a strong bias against the Discovery Institute, a prominent proponent of intelligent design. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism[53] and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism[54]) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
  26. On Dec 11, 2013 the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology (ACEP) sponsored a change.org petition that gained over 8,100 signatures. The petition demanded a less biased coverage of energy psychology. In response, Jimbo Wales denounced them as 'lunatic charlatans.'[55][56][57]
  27. The Wikipedia article for Ken Ham has had a very extreme bias against the Christian apologist. For example, his article had a false claim that he invented the term "observational science", when there was no evidence for, and evidence to the contrary to it.[58]
  28. Still think Wikipedia is unbiased on articles pertaining to evolution/creation? A look an any Wikipedia talk page pertaining to Creationism or Intelligent Design shows that many of the people editing those articles are extremely biased against those views and often make snide, hostile, and low-level comments against them.[59]
  29. Klinghofer wrote: When it comes to anything related to ID, Wiki editors have rigid and not altogether surprising biases. They are lightning fast at erasing corrections to pages they care about. Wikipedia’s coverage of ID, which they characterize as “a religious argument for the existence of God,” is hopelessly prejudiced and inaccurate. So a pseudonymous editor recommended getting rid of Dr. Bechly’s page, and another, after making a show of weighing the case and soliciting opinions from others, agreed to it. Bechly is a distinguished paleontologist. After revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design, he was terminated as a curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany which then deleted his webpages (perhaps providing a useful cue to the Wiki editors).[60][61]


  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_problem
  2. If We Can’t Trust Neil deGrasse Tyson, Who Can We Trust?, Patheos, September 17, 2014
  3. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16 (emphasis added).
  4. See PSR B1913+16.
  5. The anomaly is discussed in an unbiased way here in Essay:Quantifying Order.
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
  7. 7.0 7.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski
  8. http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf
  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur
  10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=731471041&oldid=731470641
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=731816581&oldid=731815973
  12. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=736369020&oldid=735923030
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_Museum&diff=736368986&oldid=736368969
  14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)
  15. Thanks much to a student in our American History course for pointing this out.
  16. The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[1]
  17. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826
  18. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310
  19. Institute for Creation Research by Wikipedia
  20. Schafersman," Steven. "The Institute for Creation Research and It's (sic) Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award Masters Degrees in Science Education." Texas Citizens for Science, December 17, 2007; updated January 6 and January 28, 2008. Accessed March 19, 2008.
  21. Bergman," Jerry. "The Religion of Vague: An Unsuccessful Attempt by the State of California to Close a College." Revolution Against Evolution, May 22, 2003. Accessed March 19, 2008.
  22. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
  23. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
  24. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7
  25. "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604
  26. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
  27. Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia
  28. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=267885268
  29. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=next&oldid=268115244
  30. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=267130640
  31. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=267873798
  32. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=268116166
  33. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267130755&oldid=267129633
  34. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267875875&oldid=267874801
  35. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267881496&oldid=267877410
  36. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=268117670&oldid=268115954
  37. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
  38. Id.
  39. Id.
  40. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology
  41. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_cited_to_support_a_global_flood
  42. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_against_a_global_flood
  43. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=288093849&oldid=288042808
  44. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=next&oldid=288488331
  45. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=289076441&oldid=289074740
  46. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
  47. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127
  48. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills
  49. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
  50. Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia
  51. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history
  52. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg
  53. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism
  54. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
  55. "Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology Reports Wikipedia Founder Censors Alternative Health Care Industry, Calls Providers "Lunatic Charlatans"", PR Presswire, April 3, 2014. Retrieved on April 3, 2014. 
  56. http://www.change.org/petitions/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing/responses/11054
  57. "Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners "lunatic charlatans"", ars technica, March 25, 2014. Retrieved on April 3, 2014. 
  58. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=644315768
  59. Talk:Young Earth Creationism (and archived discussions), Talk:Answers in Genesis (and archived discussions), Talk:Ken Ham (and archived discussions), for example. Retrieved July 28, 2016.
  60. Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly, David Klinghoffer, Evolution News, October 10, 2017.[2]
  61. How “Notable” Do You Really Have to Be to Merit a Wikipedia Entry?, David Klinghoffer, Evolution News, October 11, 2017.[3]