Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive11

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


possible bias

Numerous articles refer to the World War II Japanese American internment centers as "concentration camps" --TedM 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, that's typical liberal bias. Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.--Aschlafly 23:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
Exactly what is a concentration camp?the preceding comment was made by KalleF

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps and they meet the definition of a concentration camp if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

He's right you know ^^

"concentration camp" has negative connotations, but thats ok because it was negative. Hmuckabee

Obvious bias in articles on media bias watchdog groups

In wiki, (MRC) Media Research Center is labeled as conservative in the opening sentence, while FAIR (Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting) has no label at all in the opening sentence. Any attempt to delete conservative from MRC or add liberal to FAIR results in being blocked or banned from wiki. Complete lack of consistency. Even within the article for FAIR, you are not allowed to mention the word liberal, but must use the milder word progressive, although conservative is all over the MRC article. Rhino7628 08:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm slightly amused to see how some people join Conservapedia only/primarily to complain about how they got slapped on the wrist (in this case for edit warring) on Wikipedia.
I must also note that you have zero blocks on Wikipedia, despite your edit war and your apparent unwillingness of discussing (as seen on Talk:Media Research Center). So much for "results in being blocked or banned".
Furthermore, the term "liberal" is even used in FAIR's intro section, and the article is a member of the category "Liberal organisations". So I don't see how the word "liberal" is banned in there. Oh, and the word "conservative" is also all over the official MRC site.
However, we currently appear to lack entries for both MRC and FAIR, so please feel free to contribute! --Jenkins 08:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the purpose of joining this website is because of an overwhelming number of liberal slanted editors on wiki, hence, this provides an outlet for those with neutral or conservative viewpoints. This is pretty much the mission statement of this website, and this particular situation further proves the value of Conservapedia. It's strange that you find that amusing since you are a member here as well. The reason that so many edit wars happen on wiki is because if somebody dares edit anything to be neutral or conservative, thier edits are reverted by the majority liberal editors, thus the purpose of conservapedia. And a simple view of the history of the 2 mentioned articles notes provides more than enough evidence that many are blocked and banned for the very reason of opposing these biased editors. And a simple scan of these two articles notes that conservative is blatantly put in the first sentence of the MRC article, but liberal or progressive is not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. Yes, I do plan to provide entries here for MRC and FAIR when I have the time to do so. Rhino7628 18:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
My reasons for joining are not political. I actually disagree with CP's right-wing view and the creationism stuff, but I try not to let that get in the way of my editing (which is why I often go to talk pages first to voice my concerns). I know that this is what CP does, and so I often move on, even while my consciousness is screaming at me. I mostly try to defuse overly broad or wrong claims and inserted opinions to improve the overall image this site projects.
Oh, and this site's mission statement is not neutrality. We don't do NPOV here. I'd love this site to be neutral, but it's not. Take a look at some of our hot-topic articles (Atheism, Homosexuality, Theory of Evolution, etc.), and you will find that they are geared in very specific ways and that edits going against that way are removed because of their "liberal bias" (among other things).
Yes, I think you found a site that you can agree with (and I'm genuinely curious where you and CP will go with FAIR and MRC), just be aware that the things you complain about (like placement bias) also happen here, only in more extreme dimensions. And edit warring is a no-no on both WP and CP. :P --Jenkins 20:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Outdated info

Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia for displaying outdated information; shouldn't outdated claims on these pages be removed?KalleF 08:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I believe this has been brought up occasionally (check the first sections of Archives 7 and 8 of this talk page for more recent examples), and the answer generally seems to be "No." Personally, I would enjoy seeing the list being updated/trimmed/archived because it does CP's reputation little good to openly attack Wikipedia for things that have been fixed (or been rendered obsolete in another way) more than half a year or so ago. A shorter list with only the big and current/urgent items would hold the reader's attention longer. --Jenkins 09:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
I agree. A shorter list of more significant "biases" would do more to convince me than the paranoid diatribe currently available.Shocktherapy 09:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia in its article Politics of Eritrea clearly describes the country as a "one-party state", so quit the garbage about Wikipedia refusing to recognize the fact.Alloco1 00:18, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Richard Dawkins' edit

Number 80 really needs to be reworded. The wording suggests that Wikipedia let him link to an item on his store for over a year, when his conflict-of-interest edit was moved away from the body of the article in about 1 1/2 hours with the chance of deletion. Meanwhile, his one previous edit to his page was a small factual error correction about being editor of four scientific journals and founder of a fifth (he was the editor of just two scientific journals and was not the founder of the fifth). Clarify wording? PostoStudanto 13:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Moved away? When? How long until resolution? What would happen there to me, an unknown, if I linked to and was selling some tapes of mine? --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 20:16, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
Considering that "User:RichardDawkins" edits apparently also broke numerous links, it's possible that the account had been hijacked (sounds more likely than Mr. Dawkins feeling the sudden urge after a year of inactivity to vandalize his own article). The people on WP are considering it, and one of them contacted Dawkins to check since these edits simply look odd.
And there is a factual error in the entry: It did not take "well over a year after he first edited his own article" for somebody to notice it: Talk page
That all aside, I don't see why Conservapedia is making a big deal out of it. After all, we have User:Stephenblack editing Stephen Black and First Stone Ministries ("Reverend Stephen Black is the Executive Director of First Stone Ministries"). And here, people seemed quite delighted about it - maybe he was even invited to join CP to edit his own article? Do I have to conclude that Conservapedia encourages people to edit their articles where they have a COI? --Jenkins 18:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

grammatical note

"Arbitration Committe Chariman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to Michael Moore, who's official website..." should read "whose official website." Greg 23:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

And Committe should be Committee. PostoStudanto (Tλlk) 21:04, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

"Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did."

Ouch. Is this a POV statement? Merely associating one with the John Birch Society is worse than McCarthy-esque destruction of someone's career and life because of perceived communist undertones? Knowing Conservapedia's user base wouldn't association with the JBS be flattery?Shocktherapy 10:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps it should also be noted that three of those examples, as they remain in the present tense, are patently FALSE and have been so for some time. Feebasfactor 17:18, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia removed the smear against the Democrat, the deceased person and the baseball player. It left the smear against the most influential conservative group.--Aschlafly 20:23, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
While I disagree that the association between the John Birch Society and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons really constitutes a "smear" (regardless of the publication date, the assertion is properly attributed, and at the time Paul W. Leithart, a President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, was in fact a member of the JBS), I will leave the definitions of what text and deeds at Wikipedia constitute "bias" up to you. I appreciate the adjusting of the tense in the example to be more factually and objectively correct. Feebasfactor 21:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Feebasfactor, as in our discussion about Richard Dawkins, where you missed the point about how the purchase of a professorship is inappropriate, you seem to miss the point here. Guilt-by-association is wrong regardless of whether it is true. In fact, it is more wrong if it is true!--Aschlafly 21:37, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I think I understand... The association is not an example of "bias" because it is factually incorrect, but rather because it is unnecessary and misleading, presenting "facts" in such a way as to imply a false relationship and paint an unflattering picture of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. That seems to make sense; did I... get the point this time? Feebasfactor 18:40, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Right. It is "guilt by association" to smear one group based on the possibility that some of its members belong to another group found objectionable. Did you know that thousands of Democratic voters are communists???? Yet you won't see Wikipedia using guilt-by-association to smear liberals. Instead, the biased Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association to smear conservatives only.--Aschlafly 19:08, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

#82 is out-dated/incorrect

It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one was deleted shortly thereafter. See this link. нмŵוτнτ 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Someone please make this change this. нмŵוτнτ 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was deleted on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per this discussion. Feebasfactor 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). Feebasfactor 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. Feebasfactor 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Factual corrections on Henry Liddell

I did some research on the accusations about the Henry Liddell article. Though Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 is used in many articles, it was not used in the Henry Liddell article. The edit that first inserted the names and social distinctions of his grandparents wasn't from Encyclopedia Britannica. This first edit was made in 2005 by an anonymous IP shortly after the article was created. The IP address has not made any edits since. The accusation about Alice Liddell were moved up into the introduction in February. The grammar error was also fixed in February. Last week the years that he was dean at Christ Church were written into the article. PostoStudanto (Tλlk) 19:44, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

We didn't say that Liddell was based on the Encyclopedia Britannica, just that many entries are. And how do you know those edits didn't come from the Encyclopedia Britannica???--Aschlafly 20:02, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
I know because I looked at the edit history in detail, compared versions, and saw the exact points where each relative was added in (they weren't all added in at once). Fascinating things, edit histories. That and the paragraph isn't in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. PostoStudanto (Tλlk) 00:14, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Interesting study of Wikipedians' political beliefs

I studied the political beliefs of Wikipedians after reading that you said that they have a strong liberal bias. I found that, although it's mostly liberal, it's pretty evenly distributed (see graph). This should be incorporated into the article. нмŵוτнτ 11:12, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

That's interesting and surprising. And as an engineer I'll take graphs over words anyday :) Could I ask the methodology involved? HelpJazz 20:29, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
The graph makes it look like all three categories are comparable in size. They are actually vastly different in size. Factor size of the groups into this, and you'll see that the 3:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives as stated in the entry here is about right. The general U.S. public is 2:1 conservative-to-liberal.--Aschlafly 20:35, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Andy's right that registered users vastly outnumber administrators and bureaucrats; in terms of quantity alone, the ratio of liberals to conservatives probably does approach 3:1. However, this study raises another interesting question: if Wikipedia's administrators and bureaucrats are surprisingly balanced in their political views, then why does Wikipedia seem to have such a liberal bias? Does this mean that the population of casual Wikipedia users is predominately liberal? In which case: how much is to blame on the sytem, and how much on the public? Feebasfactor 20:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Are there really so few moderates among signed-in users? I'd be interested in the methodology as well.--Bayes 21:03, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I simply went by what users put on their userpages, so it's not completely accurate. Perhaps certain people with a particular belief tend to be less likely to pronounce it. That's definitely a downfall, but it's as accurate of a study as one can get limited resources.

Also, I don't find the bias too harsh. You should see what people put on Obama's and Clinton's pages. If Wikipedia was horribly biased, I wouldn't edit there, as I certainly find myself conservative. I think it's just that it's uncensored and open, which may make it more liberal.

However, if you researched for your facts, then I suppose you're correct. I just try to correct biases both ways everyday. нмŵוτнτ 09:29, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Another thing: as for the moderates in regular editors, I suppose they're more likely to put their beliefs on their userpages if they feel really strongly either way. And the opposite goes for admins/crats: they probably want to seem neutral, so make sure to state that they are if they are, and maybe not give their true beliefs to avoid conflict. нмŵוτнτ 09:31, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Why does this matter?

I don't understand why enumerating the examples of bias in Wikipedia matters that much, obviously every person has a bias of some sort, so every article written in wikipedia or otherwise has some degree of personal opinion. The general idea I get from reading this article is that Wikipedia as an entity is responsible for this bias, which is obviously incorrect since its the users provide the information it contains. maybe I don't understand what Conservapedia is about but it seems that this list is mostly filled with either misleading facts, isolated incidents, or gossip that has no place in a proper Encyclopedia.Morgoth 00:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia doesn't admit its bias, and hence it is important to expose it. And, yes, groups or mobs can have biases too. Spend some time with the attendees at the Democratic National Convention and you'll notice they have a bias, for example.--Aschlafly 00:42, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. Gofyylb 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)
It does seem as if, considering that you have been working on this list of examples of liberal bias on wikipedia for over a year and you've only found 99, it seems as if you're either doing a very poor job or that there isn't very much liberal bias, especially since there are 2 million pages. In addition, if you were actually trying to objectively prove an overall liberal bias on wikipedia, you would have both a liberal bias page and a conservative bias page, but I guess that would be too unbiased for conservapedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Echew99 (talk)

Heavy Promotion of Liberals in Inappropriate Places

I hope I'm not missing anything here, but while the "Boy Scouts v. Dale" articles still promotes liberal Evan Wolfson, I could no longer find the claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'" - it appears to have been changed [1]. Should I look for the appropriate version in the article history? Feebasfactor 23:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Aha, here it is: [2] Compared to Conservapedia, I'm always suprised at how long it takes to fix these sorts of mistakes at Wikipedia. Then again, considering the political slant of the "mistakes" there, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised... Feebasfactor 23:35, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
I updated this within minutes of this being pointed out here, and within weeks of the change on Wikipedia. That's quicker than the time it took Wikipedia to reduce (and not eliminate) its bias in that entry there.--Aschlafly 23:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
Upon rereading the unsigned comment above, it seems to agree that the liberal "mistakes" on Wikipedia are very, very slow in being corrected.--Aschlafly 23:42, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I do! :-) And sorry about the signature. Feebasfactor 23:45, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

My apologies. I realized after posting that I completely misread your additional (unsigned) comment. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

#2 (Prodigal Son)

Pretty much all of the entires on this list are misleading or trivial, so it seems kinda silly to pick on just one, but #2 is just blatantly false. The article on the "Prodigal Son" says nothing about rock bands or liberal media (?) shows like "Miami Vice". The disambiguation page does, but that can only be accessed through the main Prodigal Son page unless someone happens to include "(Disambiguation)" in their search, so don't pretend for a second that Wikipedia is trying to downplay the Biblical part. --LutherBifteck 19:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)

No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of Wikipedia entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.
Wikipedia has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the Prodigal Son was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the Prodigal Son was correct when written.--Aschlafly 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Seigenthaler controversy

WP's Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the New Yorker retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [3]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? Rob Smith 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Technical correction: According to the Wikipedia Oversight documentation the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)
I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. Rob Smith 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)


Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose." - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. Gofyylb 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Belfast / Good Friday Agreement

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement". It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, "The Agreement".

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the Northern Ireland Bill which implemented the Agreement.

The official website of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled "The Agreement" and includes an annex entitled, "Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --Setanta 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia betrays itself [4] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian bigotry. Rob Smith 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

#4 Justice Byron White Error

Is this bias? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often liberal smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--Aschlafly 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that conclusively contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)
Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous liberal smears, such many identified in the content page here: Bias in Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)
This is the talk page for that article. PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Dawkins again

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? Order 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)


I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in the article - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--IDuan 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

You still don't "get it" about the bias of gossip in Wikipedia. #84 is example of Wikipedia fomenting false gossip. Wikipedia pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--Aschlafly 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--IDuan 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)


This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. Wisdom89 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)


This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. Wisdom89 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

But Wikipedia does have an entry on deceit, using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if Wikipedia omitted the entry entirely.--Aschlafly 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers Wisdom89 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Now you make a different argument. In fact, Wikipedia only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. Wikipedia used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--Aschlafly 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[5] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an apparent hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[6] Jinxmchue 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--Aschlafly 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)


I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, and then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages while attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --TrueGrit 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)


Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about Al Gore on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some magical button that I could press in which I could add content to or delete erroneous content from Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. Cheesehead 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. Karajou 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)
The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.
Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. Wisdom89 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)
You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. "ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all" Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. Karajou 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)
Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. Wisdom89 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)
Cheesehead, try to understand what gossip and liberal bias are before denying that they permeate Wikipedia entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by Wikipedia, and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)


The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [7][8]. Order 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to Thomas Nast. But Wikipedia, in its bias for phony globalism, pushes it.--Aschlafly 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. Wisdom89 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? User1601 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)
The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to Thomas Nast. But Wikipedia with its anti-American and globalist bias, pushes the confusing term.--Aschlafly 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [9], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [10], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [11]. Order 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)
No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the liberal direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on Google before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--Aschlafly 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Actually, Order, the US does allow dual citizenships with some countries. I actually have a triple citizenship because both my parents are foreign nationals. Even so, the suggestion that "German-American" is a confusing term is plainly ridiculous. There are plenty groups that self identify as X-Americans (Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, African-Americans, and Irish-Americans leap to mind. In fact, here's a link to the German American Heritage Foundation. Noone seems to think this term is confusing except you, Andy. SSchultz 17:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
Order 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)
User:Order, I can see you lurching towards last wordism here, as liberals tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--Aschlafly 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. Order 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

What's Wrong With Bias?

If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?User1601 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)

A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)
User1601, Wikipedia is not "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit Wikipedia to correct its bias are futile - in response, the liberal mob and bullies who run Wikipedia will restore the bias or even make it worse!--Aschlafly 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)
I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -Vcelloho 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Concealed bias is particularly objectionable.--Aschlafly 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

Wikipedia corrected its bias on the above point only after we exposed it here.--Aschlafly 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

well you know that kind of seems like a load of crap because it doesn't exist now and you have no way of knowing whether it was changed because you "exposed them"

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Echew99 (talk)

Renaissance: I contest point 64

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -Vcelloho 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count

I just noticed this:

29. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included:
30. *pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[38]
31. *anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[39]
32. *the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[40]
33. *conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[41]
34. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

Is it intentional that the JBS bias is stretched over six points? It strikes me as a formatting error.

I am currently not aware of a way to fix the list in the current form. The main problem is the paragraph after the last example. Without it, things would be easy to fix. In the current form, here is my suggestion (it's important not to have additional spaces in the "#:*" or "#:" parts). It looks okay and gets the point across :

  1. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included:
    • pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[1]
    • anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[2]
    • the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[3]
    • conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[4]
    In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

(You can simply copy and paste the above section from the edit box here, I left the references intact.) --JakeC 08:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I think that formatting is intentional, as each one catalogues a different example of bias (but all are loosely related under the same category, JBS smears). GlobeGores 13:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
I disagree because all other Examples of Bias stick to the "one theme, one number" setting and are self-contained We could move each entry freely without loss of information. Additionally. if we took each instance of a particular bias as its own number, we could easily fill up the list to a hundred using only the various articles about evolution, gun control, and so on. I don't believe that was the goal of this list. --JakeC 13:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)

JakeC is correct. Those "entries" were originally (back in July) added as a single numbered point[12], and remained that way until fairly recently (three weeks ago), when they were inadvertently (it would appear) altered as part of a reformatting effort to put spaces between the hashes and the first character[13], but in this case put them between the hashes and the asterisks. I've fixed it. Philip J. Rayment 07:14, 30 December 2007 (EST) P.S. The last one ("In response to this criticism...") was always a separate point, so that's the way I've left it. Philip J. Rayment 07:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Another example of Wikipedia silliness

Might it be worthwhile to add to this list the large record Wikipedia keeps of featured vandalism? Also, both administrators and users go berserk on April Fools' Day instead of acting like a real encyclopedia would - that is, to treat it like any other day. GlobeGores 13:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Regarding April Fool's Day: Maybe not the best idea? (Note: The link points to the section above the one I want to link to. I mean the "Please do not v*ndalise our project templates." section. The CP spam filter doesn't allow the word "v*ndalise" to appear anywhere for some reason) --JakeC 14:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)
For accuracy's sake, they don't update that record of vandalism. They used to keep track of the most humorous stuff, but now they only keep the page for posterity. HelpJazz 14:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)
The bastards, having fun... Barikada 22:22, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Zeta - if we want to go there?

I don't know if anyone wants to go quite so deep into the cesspit that is Wikipedia, but I'll ask anyway. [Ed. Note: remainder deleted based on application of our rules]

You're right that it is a cesspit, and our adherence to higher standards than Wikipedia requires us to refrain from wading into every cesspit. For now, we'll pass on trying to clean up the cesspit you've identified, though I do not fault you for identifying it as such. I look forward to reviewing your substantive contributions here. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)


This is a long and impressive list! I think it might benefit from organizing the points under headings like: "Anti-American Bias", "Anti-Christian Bias", "Anti-Conservative Bias", and so on. This could make it easier to navigate and more powerful.

If people are interesting in this the categries and which point goes where could be worked on the talk page and then a Sysop could unprotect the page briefly so points could be placed.--PhineasBogg 22:02, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Done. --Ed Poor Talk 22:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks for your help, Ed! I should clarify however, that I was not proposing the page be edited yet. I wanted some discussion to see what should go where first. For example, under what heading should the first point, about Butto being strong Pro-life be placed?--PhineasBogg 23:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Don't be too methodical. Please pick the low-hanging fruit first. If you find a half-dozen items that go together, just put those together. Others will follow your lead. --Ed Poor Talk 08:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Reorganization is fine, provided it does not dilute the entry through placement bias. For example, the entry about Bhutto is timely and compelling, and works well on the first page seen by readers.--Aschlafly 10:20, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Holy cow! Elkman blocked everyone who uses my IP range

Because I rightfully described a recent question of his as "disruptive trolling" when I reverted it here. Elkman's statement about blocking the IP range is here. Probably won't make the list, but it's another little insight into how Wikipedia works. If you're an admin or higher, you can break all the Wiki policies you want and get away with it. Jinxmchue 00:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

I see, though, that Elkman got overruled, if I'm reading it correctly. Philip J. Rayment 06:37, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Yes. It wasn't an official overruling, but the majority opinion was against him. Jinxmchue 11:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)
And no apology, right? It's amazing to me how Wikipedia causes so much harm and almost never apologies or admits it was wrong. I guess that is the atheistic culture.--Aschlafly 11:38, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Uh, hello? I was accused of being a sockpuppet and was blocked for nearly two months. After being unblocked, the first thing I see is hostility on my talk page. Also, the article liberal style #38 reads: "silly demands for apologies". If you're expecting those on Wikipedia to apologize for their actions, it would seem common sense to start it on your own site first. I'm not asking for an apology though, I'm merely stating a point. As for the blocking on Wikipedia, accusing a question on one's talk page as trolling and then saying you want the administrator blocked for it, well, on any wiki, you're just trolling yourself, yes? (please note, I'm not liberal, atheist, or a supporter of Wikipedia, but just imagine what action would've been taken had that happened here on CP) LardoBolger 12:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)
This is the closest I got to getting an apology: "Jinxmchue wins; I lose." [14] Jinxmchue 17:51, 31 December 2007 (EST)

You forgot to mention that I did get blocked for my actions. I can't edit pages while blocked. I'm not even sure I should edit pages after the block expires, to tell the truth. I'll admit that I was wrong to place the block -- in fact, I was wrong to get involved at all. Sin is unforgivable, and Sin (Fundamentalism) states that any sort of imperfection is intolerable and unacceptable, so anything else I say at this point won't help. --Elkman 21:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Don't know why you're attacking religion here. Sin is forgivable ... to those who ask for forgiveness, obviously.--Aschlafly 21:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)
First "I guess that is the atheistic culture," and then "Don't know why you're attacking religion here." If you want to believe that when Atheists do something wrong it's because they're atheists, go ahead. But don't turn around when people do the same thing to religion.--Anschelsc 16:27, 20 January 2008 (EST)
If a Christian does something wrong, he is going against God's standards. If an atheist does something wrong... well, actually, if you're an atheist, you have no basis for right and wrong. Philip J. Rayment 17:03, 20 January 2008 (EST)
They might not have a deity, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have a different basis for deciding what is right or wrong. Order 17:49, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Perhaps I didn't word it the best, but although an atheist can decide that something is "wrong", somebody else could decide otherwise, and he has no basis for claiming that something in inherently wrong. Philip J. Rayment 19:51, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Sure, but I don't see the big difference. Also theists disagree about how their deity wants them to behave, and in the end decision how to behave remains with the individual. And of course, atheist can clearly claim that something is inherently wrong, just like many theists do when they embrace the golden rule. It seems like you claim claim that nothing is inherently wrong, but that it is wrong for some external reason. Order 22:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Define "inherently wrong". And some theists disagreeing with other theists doesn't invalidate the concept. Philip J. Rayment 22:55, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Inherent, means by nature or habit, the essential character of something. If you involve a third party to define the morality of a behavior, this third party is external. It might still provide a valid reason, but it is not intrinsic. Theists disagreeing proves that in the end every individual theist decides for himself, has to decide for himself, which rules to apply and when. Order 23:20, 20 January 2008 (EST)
I was after a definition of "inherently wrong" (not just "inherent") that would in principle allow one to determine if something was inherently wrong or not. Your definition doesn't allow me to do that. Philip J. Rayment 02:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)
I gave you an example for a definition of what is inherently wrong, namely the golden rule. But if it is still unclear I am more than happy to go into detail. As far as it isn't a tangent. Order 02:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)
So cannibalism is not inherently wrong? I ask because in cannibalistic societies, it was often (if not always) the case that two (or more) tribes both practiced cannibalism against the other tribe. Also, what if you want to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, but they don't follow (recognise as authoritative) the Golden Rule? Philip J. Rayment 04:25, 21 January 2008 (EST)
And both of these tribes typically held theist beliefs. Thanks. Theism was often even the motivation for cannibalism. Cannibalism as it was practiced was certainly not according to the golden rule. Or would you like to live in fear that you end up as dinner, whenever you meet a group from another people? I guess not. So, you do it by talking to them if you get the chance. What is your alternative? Telling them about your deity, instead? We can expand on this, but your example shows quite nicely, that having a deity doesn't guarantee any behavior. Order 05:44, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Of course it depends on the deity, and what he says. And yes, they did live in fear that they would end up as dinner (although it wasn't "whenever you meet a group from another people"), but that's the point: it didn't stop them. Telling them that there is a Golden Rule is not going to stop them. That's an arbitrary imposition on them, which they have no obligation to accept. But telling them that their actions are wrong according to the God who made them does give them an obligation to accept. Of course, you do have to convince them that what you are telling them is the truth, and having free will they can choose to accept or reject that standard, but there is a logical basis for accepting that standard. (And, of course, Christian missionary influence has led to the abolition of cannibalism in many places.) The Golden Rule was, of course, a rule given by that Creator. But if it wasn't, it's just another arbitrary rule that provides no logical basis (as distinct from a self-preserving one, in this case) for them to follow that rule. The point is, when it comes to right and wrong, the only absolute basis for it is the standards of the Creator. Because He is the Creator, He can set the rules. (The fact that people have the ability to reject those rules does not change this.) If there is no Creator, the rules are set by human beings according to their opinions. There is nothing intrinsic or inherent about an action that makes it right or wrong other than whether or not it conforms to the standard of the One who has the authority to set the rules. Philip J. Rayment 06:18, 21 January 2008 (EST)
The alternative though, Philip, is that man created God in his image and wrote the rules up according to beliefs that society has built up. Some of them for good evolutionary reasons such as look after your family/tribe members; others for power. Through centuries of social and religious development, these rules become inherent in society, e.g. it's bad to kill, steal, etc. While a prehistoric man might not have any moral compunction not to kill a competing male for resources and is therefore amoral by our standards, that same man transported and brought up in our society would be indoctrinated into our rules, either by convention or law. Claiming that man has morals and the only source of them must be God is, in my humble opinion, one of the weakest "proofs of God's existence" arguments. After all, did the tribe of Israel go around murdering and raping each other before the Ten Commandments? Of course not. They wouldn't have got very far if they did. Ajkgordon 07:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, that is an/the alternative explanation for how morals came to be, but that explanation doesn't provide a firm foundation for morals. I'm not claiming this as evidence of God. I'm claiming that without God, there is no solid basis for morals. And even evolutionists such as Dawkins agree with this.[15][16] The Ten Commandments were putting in writing what the Isrealites had already been told, as far back as Adam and Eve. Philip J. Rayment 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
So, you could ask what didn't stop them? What didn't stop them was culture, theistic beliefs, and peer pressure. And as you admit, they did live in fear, so at least you have something in common with them, and that is a basis to come to an understanding. If I understand you correctly, rather than to appeal to something they share with you, your advice is to have them first accept your version of how the world came to be, something that is probably alien and strange to them. It appears to me that trying to make them accept the story of a talking snake is not exactly the the best first move, I see two other more fundamental problems with your reasoning, moral problems.
First, you admit that there are no intrinsic values. All value are externally derived from your deity. This means that morality now becomes dependent on how you interpret what a deity might have said or intended. However, we do not generally accept it if someone commits an immoral act, and defends himself by pointing to his deity. We rightfully hold the person itself responsible for its acts. You undermine free will, because you give people the option to claim that they just misunderstood the deity. And we have proof that people understand the same deity differently, now, and through history. In the end even you cannot escape that an individual makes the choice in the end for his actions, and the existence of a deity doesn't change this.
Second, you will have to live together with people who do not share your beliefs about the origin of the world. It seems like you gave up on convincing others to live in peace with you, unless they accept your version of history. This is frankly a recipe for disaster. Regardless of whether your version is correct, you should be able to come to an agreement with people you disagree with. And the golden rule has been proven to be acceptable to humans of all backgrounds and convictions.
Finally, and we touched on this subject before. It appears that you only treat people morally because of your relation with your creator, and not because of your relation with those other people. I in contrast think that people should follow the golden rule because they care about themselves and other people around them, and not because of fear for some deity that might not might not exist. We know that those other people exist, and we know that we care about them and ourselves. I see nothing wrong with the golden rule. And it is certainly not arbitrary. If the creator would change this rule, people should still live by it.
But to end on a positive note, least we agreed that you think that there are no intrinsic values. Order 07:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
What didn't stop them was their culture, the wrong theistic beliefs, and peer pressure (what peer pressure?). I'd ask you to keep in mind that I'm talking about Christianity, not theism. I don't have fear in common with them. Missionaries do quite often find something in common. One case I read (not involving cannibals) was of a tribe who worshipped the spirits of the mountains, but when you dug deeper, they had an ancient memory of the "one true God". So the missionary told them more about this true God. Regardless, to animistic cultures not tainted by evolutionary ideas, the biblical account makes a lot of sense. It's not as "strange" as it is to you.
You are confusing principles with application. Morality is dependent on what the Creator says. How we come to understand that is a separate issue. Without the Creator's standards, there is no basis for right and wrong. Atheists do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act because atheists don't believe in any god, but have no reason to reject the immoral act except their own opinion. Christians do not accept it if someone blames "his deity" for an immoral act, because it is not the true God that he is blaming. But Christians do have reason to reject the immoral act, as being contrary to what God has said. See, Christians have a basis for this; atheists don't. Yes, a person makes their own choice, and are responsible for their own actions, but you can't blame them for their actions unless you have a standard higher than them and you by which to judge them.
Your second point is pointless. Yes, I live with people who don't share my belief. And yes, that is a problem. My solution is that they should all share my belief, i.e. belief in the true Creator God. Your solution is that we should all share your belief, i.e. belief that right and wrong is whatever we consider them to be (which may or may not be that we consider them to be based on the Golden Rule). Frankly, your belief is a recipe for disaster, because it is in principle unable to solve anything. That is, even if everyone were to believe that right and wrong is decided by our opinions, there's still no guarantee that we will agree on what is right and what is wrong.
Yes, I only treat people morally because of God. Because without Him there is no basis for doing so. That is why Christians throughout history have been responsible for starting hospitals, schools, orphanages, charities, welfare organisations, for abolishing slavery, etc. etc., and no other religion, including atheism, has made anything like the contribution to society that Christianity has. Because Christianity teaches that people have worth, because they are created in God's image. Non Christians have no such teaching, with the results that they have done relatively little to advance society.[17] [18] [19].
Philip J. Rayment 09:15, 21 January 2008 (EST)
So even missionaries did look for things in common, that is indeed encouraging, but I wouldn't have expected otherwise. Because that is how people connect, and that is actually the basis of the golden rule, that you recognize something of yourself in the other. And that is something most humans have in common, even if they don't share similar myths. And indeed, it is probably no surprise that people that grow up in pre-modern societies recognize something in the stories from other pre-modern societies.
How we understand it is not a separate issue. How do you know what the one true god wants? Supposed that it is an interventionist god, and not just some prime mover, or some unexplained natural force. So which true god is it? Is it the true god who wants us to stone obnoxious children at the gates of the city? That is probably not the true god you were looking for. Or is it the true god who finds it acceptable for you to sell your daughter into slavery? That is probably not your true god either. What about the true god who wants you to give up all your possessions, and live in poverty? That may not be the one either? Or how about the one true god who wants you to turn the other cheek? Is this the one? There are quite some choices. We know that you think to have the wisdom to chose the correct one, but we can't rely on everybody choosing the right one. Courts do not argue if the offenders interpretation of the bible is right, but if his choices and actions are. So in the end, it is your choice that matters, and you cannot escape making a choice.
You don't have to follow the golden rule because of what I believe, and that is the beauty of it. You can be dead certain that if you treat other people bad, they will treat you bad, too. No matter what I believe. So rather than basing your morals on a hypothetical, you can base it on something that does actually exist. Sure, the application of the golden rule changes as society changes. And that is a good thing, because it encourages discussion about how we want to live our lives, which is in turn the essence of a democracy.
I agree Europeans born in Europe have done a lot to advance western society. I am happy to accept that credit. In this context it is a bit a pity that you reject on of the key ideas that emerged during the European enlightenment, namely that of the intrinsic value of humans. But, lets not forget that also other people created orderly and civil societies, and in this globalised world, they have also a lot to contribute and to learn from.
In the end, the crucial bit becomes if you accept the golden rule as a guideline or not, and the reason why you accept it is secondary. This rule should be self-evident, but if your belief in a deity is the only way for you accept it, your belief serves at least a good purpose.
To conclude, I suggest we can cut this discussion short. You do not believe in intrinsic values, and that was what exactly the point I made at the beginning of this discussion. I gave an example for a definition of what is intrinsic wrong, and I am not really surprised that you attack the example. It was actually to be expected that you try to steer the discussion on a tangent when you asked for an example. But I hadn't expected that you struggle with the golden rule itself. Order 10:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
How we understand is a separate issue. First, do you agree in principle that if God (whomever He might be) created us, then he owns us and has the right to set the rules? That question needs to be answered before going on to deciding "which God" or how we determine what He wants.
If courts ask if a defender's actions are right, by what standard are they judging "right"? Originally, courts did this on the basis of the Bible. Then laws were made, on the basis of the Bible, and where applicable the courts judged if a person's actions were "right" on the basis of those biblically-based laws.
I said that Christians have improved society, and you changed that to "Europeans", claiming that therefore we agree on that. But the people concerned did what they did because of their Christian beliefs, not because they were Europeans.
The "enlightenment" was no such thing. It was more of an "endarkenment", in which God was rejected and so they had to invent alternative explanations for things, such as the worth of a human. What is the intrinsic worth of a human? Probably about $3 worth of chemicals. But even that is only because people are willing to pay for chemicals. The point is, nothing has any intrinsic worth except in the sense of what they are worth to others, i.e. everything's worth is due to something outside the thing or person. Saying that people have intrinsic worth is simply deeming it to be so, with no basis. But if the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe considers you to be worth something (which He does), then boy, are you worth something! You are not just worth a few dollars, or even a million dollars, but you are worth Him coming in human form and suffering and dying a cruel death to redeem you (buy you back). That's where our worth comes from.
Philip J. Rayment 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)
So, on principle, if you make a being that is sentient, that has what we call free will, and that can suffer pain, then you don't own it in the sense that you mean. What you propose would be worse than a zoo, and close to an abusive relationship. But the crucial bit is actually that we know almost nothing about this being, "whoever it might be", and that thus everything depends on your interpretation. Some might ask you why are you still able to go online, why you do not live in poverty. They would ask if you didn't hear that your creator wants you to live in poverty? You don't because you choose not to follow this interpretation. It is was your choice to pick one interpretation over another. If person A commits an immoral act and claims that god told him to do so, and person B commits a moral act and claims that god told him to do so, we don't judge this action by checking if they did actually talk to god, but by the effect of their action on other humans. We laud person B, and loathe person A.
No, they did it neither because they were Christians, nor because they were Europeans. Christians were in each debate on both sides on the aisle, as were Europeans. But it could change the world because they were Europeans, had a different access to the world and the mighty, than other parts of the worlds. Most of the progress you claim for yourself was a consequence of the "enlightment", and it changed the world because it started in Europe, like it or not. BTW: most of our legal system has pre-Christian roots. The Roman republic had and has more influence than the bible on law.
So, a human is worth $3? You did admit that this is an external price, and thus not an intrinsic value. And sure, moral acts always refer to interactions between people. That is in the nature of acts. But to judge this act, you can look at these people, and it doesn't matter whether they were created by a benevolent creator, a malevolent creator, an omnicient creator, an alien, within 6 days, 6 ages of 1000 years, or 6 billion years. If someone hits you on your head, it hurts, and almost all humans can agree on this. The know this today, and they knew it in the middle ages, during the roman republic, in pre-Christian Iceland, in China during the Han dynasty, on Easter Island, in the Amazon, etc. That is something all humans have in common, and it provides a solid basis. More solid than some creation story that might or might not be true, and upon which almost no two people do agree. Order 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
I made this last point already a few times, so I guess there is no point it discussing it again. Everybody has to make up his own mind about the golden rule. Leaving this behind us, can you briefly explain this story about this entity, that allegedly makes the rules, that had to hurt itself, to make up for pain that others suffered. It is customary to not ask what it actually means, because it has religious roots, but can you nevertheless make an attempt to explain the rationale for that. Order 05:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)
"Yes, I only treat people morally because of God." Philip, I think (hope) I have misunderstood you. Could you just clear this up, please? Do you mean that you only treat people morally because God has directed you to and that if he hadn't you would have no problem in treating people immorally? If not, what do you mean? Ajkgordon 12:21, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Not specifically because God has directed me to, but more because of who we are (creations of God), and what we mean to Him. The last part of my concurrent post above to Order should explain it more. If we weren't created by God (an impossibility, as an uncaused universe is impossible, and complex things don't arise by chance), then there is no absolute basis for morals, which means that there's no basis for how you treat other people, except to the extent that you get something out of it. (For example, you might treat a neighbour nicely so that he will help you with something, but you might kill someone else in order to obtain scarce resources. Self-preservation can justify either scenario in different circumstances.) Philip J. Rayment 22:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Um, dude. You blocked yourself for your actions. That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. Jinxmchue 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Wow. And now they're just outright lying about me here:

he avoided the block through anonymous IP's, stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off.

I, of course, never made any such statement. These guys are really pathetic. Jinxmchue 22:37, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Examples should be restricted

Examples should be restricted to issues that were corrected on Wikipedia and then reverted. Only then can you really say that Wikipedia is truly biased. Most of the examples have been corrected after their posting here on Conservapedia. This is not any kind of example of bias; in fact it's exactly the opposite: Wikipedians want to make sure their encyclopedia is as free of bias as possible, so much so that they go out of their way to visit Conservapedia to correct that bias. You have to realize that Conservapedia is not all that popular, nor are many of its topics (e.g. the page for Rick Scarborough has less than 100 edits).

It's patently unfair to call bias when it's very easy to swing the bias of Wikipedia more towards center by editing it your bloody self. Illuminatedwax 16:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)

As far as your last sentence is concerned, I've already tried that, and it doesn't work, at least not on issues for which there is a group of editors (and sysops) determined to keep the status quo. Philip J. Rayment 18:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Puhleeze. Wikipedia not only won't tolerate opinions contrary to the admins' biases in discussions, it won't let relevant facts they don't like remain in articles. Perlster 17:57, 5 February 2008 (EST)

The last point

Can somebody delete the last entry as a "bias" - not only is it formatted/linked incorrectly, but such an article wouldn't ever exist on Wikipedia because it is completely non-notable and has no reliable sources. You can't create a Wikipedia article when the only coverage is another wiki like Conservapedia. Wisdom89 17:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)

If you meant the one I think you meant, I've deleted it, although not necessarily for the reasons that you say. Philip J. Rayment 18:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Not sure why it wouldn't be for the reasons I provided. The individual was obviously upset that an article he/she created was speedily deleted - or maybe he/she was witness to it, I'm not sure. However, Wikipedia is subject to policy, and one of them is Verification from Reliable Sources. It's unchallengeable. Someone who creates an article about biases in Wikipedia and uses another Wiki as a reference shouldn't be surprised when said article is tagged for deletion. Wikipedia knows its own problems (to an extent), so the users will still try their best to adhere to NPOV, V, and NOR. Wisdom89 20:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
I didn't say that it wasn't for the reasons you said. To some extent I didn't understand both what you were getting at, and what the item was getting at (and that was one reason for deleting it). As for NPOV, see the comments that I'll make shortly in the following section. Philip J. Rayment 02:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Oxford FOI statement

It would be only fair to include the entire Oxford reply in the item on Dawkins professorship. Also the part that says Since then Dr Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996. Quoting selectively and omitting this sentence looks like we have something to hide. Order 18:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Is that... disclaimer being brought up and applied here again? Feebasfactor 18:55, 3 January 2008 (EST)
It was mentioned in the revert, but we still haven't had any evidence if the disclaimer is relevant at all. Order 20:47, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Wikipedia as a knowledge base

I have used (and do use) wikipedia frequently however in saying that, I would never use wikipedia as a scholastic resource. I would use it to get an idea of what I wanted to look for, define search terms and maybe as a starting point for further research but I would never take it as pure truth and take what I read there with a grain of salt unless backed up with other data from various sites. Instead of mocking wikipedia non-stop as a liberal haven of half truths and lies why dont Conservapedians just see wikipedia for what it is. It is simply a knowledge base, open for all to edit. Almost like a search engine with more info, whether fact or fiction, and leave it at that. I mean why care if its liberal or not? Does it hurt anyone? If you dont like it, dont read it. MetcalfeM

What you say could also be said about the National Enquirer and, yes, both hurt a lot of people with their gossip and distortions. The difference is that the National Enquirer does not also claim to be something better than it is. Wikipedia does claim to be neutral (a lie) and an encyclopedia (misleading).--Aschlafly 19:17, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Up to a point I agree with MetcalfeM. But only up to a point. I said to someone the other day that I thought Wikipedia was a good source, except in two cases. One is controversial topics, where one view often overpowers the other. And controversial topics are not exactly that rare on Wikipedia. (More in a subsequent post.) The other is obscure topics where there might be a single, or very few, contributors, who may or may not know what they are talking about and who may or may not be sufficiently objective. One point on which I strongly disagree is that it doesn't "hurt". Both gossip and misinformation can be quite harmful.

Admittly Wikipedia is subject to false accusations etc etc. Being such an enourmus site it must be hard to vet everything on it. However it is misleading also to state conservapedia is an encyclopedia by the same regard and although it doesnt claim to be neutral, conservapedia is just as slanted to particular view (or ideology or whatever you want to call it) as Wikipedia. I mean this without offence of course. Just trying to get a clearer picture. MetcalfeM

The "clearer picture" is that Wikipedia lies in claiming to be neutral, and we do not lie about what we are. Second, Wikipedia allows gossip that destroys and misleads people, while we prohibit it. If you like the National Enquirer, you'll love Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 19:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I do not love wikipedia however, as stated, it is a wonderful knowledge base. A collection of thoughts, ideas and, yes, facts and hearsay. To tar every editor and entry on wikipedia with the same brush is absurd. I am not American hence have not had a lot of exposure to the National Enquirer but I know all publications are subject to gossip and conjecture. You would only be mislead by wikipedia if you took wikipedia as read without looking further. By the same logic this website could be misleading if a subject posted here was not fully investigated. A point in case is the old entry which stated Einsteins theories had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Granted it was fixed but while it was there it was misleading. As some entries on atheism here are slightly misleading.MetcalfeM

It also depends on the subject in question. As a compendium of knowledge, some topics are aces (the sciences, popular culture etc.), others are weaker, while some are flat out atrocious. Aschlafly denounces Wikipedia because of its supposed uncontestable policy of Neutral Point of View. I don't mean to speak for him, but my perception is that he (like many others here) is convinced that this core policy is breached far too often. While I agree to an extent, I've seen hundreds of editors try their best to uphold and adhere to it. I know I do. Also, there is rampant vandalism from random anonymous users by the minute, sometimes insidious, which then goes unnoticed for far too long. However, that's what happens when you have 2 million articles. I must say though, there are measures that have been taken. Dozens of automated bots patrol Wikipedia and undue silly or vulgar vandalism, frequent page blanking etc..etc. There are also fail-safe programs/scripts such as TW and Vandalproof that hundreds of users use to fight vandalism on a consistent basis. TW is particularly useful. Anyway, my point is this: Wikipedia is useful as a starting point, to point you in the right direction. It can be entirely accurate on a majority of topics, while others, well...aren't. Biographies of living people (especially those in politics) are hit frequently with vandalism, and sometimes it's not fixed fast enough. Wisdom89 20:48, 3 January 2008 (EST)

You have hit the nail on the head Wisdom89. As I stated, Wikipedia is fine and dandy as a starting point and will give some direction in what you are searching for. Like a search engine with information. There are many people that try to adhere to wikipedias outline of a NPOV but it is must be hard to keep all millions of articles that way. I am just sort of astounded by conservapedias vitrol in expounding Wikipedias failings. Who cares if wikipedia is liberal when they say they are neutral, BAH! What difference does it make? Res ipsa loquitur, it is what it is. MetcalfeM

The problem with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is, as mentioned, that it is violated too often. But we're not talking just about deliberate violation that can be reverted, but distorted thinking. I've many times seen people equate a neutral point of view with a scientific point of view (by which they mean evolution and its ilk). Yes, in their minds, they are trying for an neutral point of view. But they have a weird idea of "neutral". And this problem is not just with a few nutty editors, but with a swag of such editors and sysops who enforce this POV by sheer numbers and authority.
And this extends to not just articles about, for example, creation, intelligent design, and evolution (where evolution is presented as true, and creation and intelligent design as false, despite the NPOV policy). In such articles there may be a token attempt to be neutral. But in articles not directly about these issues, such as an article about birds, evolution is presented as unchallenged fact. No neutrality there, yet such articles must number into the thousands.
Philip J. Rayment 02:21, 4 January 2008 (EST)

More admin screwups

I don't know if Jinxmchue has been around here lately, but he forgot to mention my latest screwup: I screwed up renaming some categories from "National Historic Landmarks of (state)" to "National Historic Landmarks in (state)".

Oh, by the way, I mentioned earlier that sins aren't forgivable. It's not an attack against religion -- if I wasn't religious, I wouldn't care about my sins or my mistakes or anything like that. Let's take a look at Paul's letter to the Romans chapter 6:

Romans 6:1: What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it?
Romans 6:15: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
Romans 13:4-7: But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

I think Paul puts forth several clear arguments here about why sin isn't acceptable and why it isn't excusable for someone to sin, make mistakes, screw up, or otherwise transgress against someone. --Elkman 21:37, 5 January 2008 (EST)

I read your first quote and see if refers to persistent sin. Do yourself a favor: open your heart and mind to what the Bible says, before you go down a path that leads to depression, anxiety and sorrow.--Aschlafly 21:55, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Sins aren't forgiveable? That's not the same faith that I was brought up in then! And why wouldn't you care about your sins if you weren't religious? Surely you would still care about doing wrong to others. Or are you saying that you only care about your sins for fear of divine retribution? Genuinely confused. Ajkgordon 16:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)
I couldn't figure out what he was talking about either, but don't know where he "mentioned earlier" that sins weren't forgivable, so didn't know the background. Philip J. Rayment 18:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

88. Jimbo on international editors

Number 88 (currently) is dubious:

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[128]
"I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.[129] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]

You make it sound like any global project that isn't limited to Americans is automatically biased, just because political views differ throughout the world. A more reasonable position would be that an American-only wiki (such as this one effectively is) is automatically biased. Ortega 18:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Example number 14

I first posted a message regarding this example on TerryH's talk page, and he suggested that I take the discussion here.

Looking back on my original message, I realize I was a bit unclear in my intentions. I don't deny that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public; that's not what I'm against. What I'm against is us making false claims about Wikipedia's citations.

In example #14, it is claimed that the sources cited say nothing about "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" of the 6 times figure. While this is correct for one of the sources cited, the other source, from ([20]) does indeed criticize the extrapolation and credibility, making #14 false.

As I said on Terry's talk, I just don't want Conservapedia filled with same kinds of inaccuracies as Wikipedia. Only the truth should reside here, nothing else.

Best, Gillespie 17:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

This is an issue I brought up some time ago when the example was listed as #8 - see above. Wisdom89 18:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)
The references don't support Wikipedia's claim. To the contrary, the references tend to support Conservapedia's claim yet Wikipedia claims otherwise.--Aschlafly 19:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)
The Star said "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation.". I can see why people call that criticism because of poor extrapolation. Order 19:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hmmm... Perhaps something along the lines of:

But of the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility", only one briefly mentions extrapolation or credibility, and both instead tend to confirm the liberal bias on Wikipedia.

...Maybe? Well, in any case, I'll point out the small spelling error (to --> two) that needs to be fixed as well. Feebasfactor 20:05, 10 January 2008 (EST)

It is not that briefly. The article spends three paragraphs on it. So I would can the "briefly". The other reference is to a blog, and we all know that it is bad style to quote some minor blogs to make a point. The second reference should be removed for that reason alone. Order 20:26, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Feebasfactor, there is no spelling error. You're mistaken. User:Order is right about the reference to a blog, which is silly by Wikipedia to cite that as a reference. Moreover, Wikipedia implicitly admits we're right in example 14 because it weakened its criticism of Conservapedia on that point. By the way, no one seriously denies that Wikipedia is significantly more liberal than the American public, expect perhaps devout Wikipedia "NPOV" types.--Aschlafly 20:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Right, I was mistaken... I initially read the sentence differently, thinking "to articles" was intended as "two articles". Upon rereading it makes perfect sense as the former, sorry about the confusion (mine...). Feebasfactor 22:35, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Indeed, there just few people contesting it. But that doesn't give you the freedom to use shaky statistics to come up with a number. If you want to say it is more liberal do so, and find sound evidence for that. If you want to say it is six-times more liberal, then you need to have sound evidence for the six-times as well. And the article is criticizing how you arrived at this number. You are probably taller than Danny de Vito. But if you claim that you are six times as tall, the fact that Danny de Vito isn't the tallest, is not proof for you six-times claim.
The other reference has some criticism of the six-times figure, but only in the comments. But as said, using such a blog as source is dubious in the first place. Order 21:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)
I did spend hours here debating apologists for Wikipedia over the "six times as liberal" figure. I even built entries here explaining the methodology, and refuting criticisms of it, and you can find those entries with searches. Measuring temperature, or almost anything, is never perfect and there can be constructive criticisms of any measurement. But as I recall the real articles about Conservapedia did not really doubt or criticize the figure, and certainly didn't criticize the figure in a manner claimed by Wikipedia in its entry about us. Many people, including liberals, were intrigued by the attempt to quantify how liberal something is. The intense criticism of the measurement seems to be by people who think there is something wrong with quantifying how liberal a group is. Nothing wrong with it at all.--Aschlafly 22:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)
You're missing the point entirely. Your #14 is incorrect. Your entry is explicitly stating that the references do not criticize the derivation of the 6x's estimate. The references absolutely do. That's the problem here. One may be a blog, I'm surprised it's being used as it's not reliable, but the other is. You're misleading the readers of this article simply to inflate the number of biases. Wisdom89 22:19, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Also, the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia does not use the phrasing "credibility and extrapolation" anymore - and it hasn't for some time now. Wisdom89 22:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Given the time and effort that you put into defending the comparison of a poll with 3 possible answers and a representative sample to a self-identification project with 32 possible answers by a self-selected group, I did indeed wonder fairly frequently, if hadn't been easier for you to spend an afternoon on getting reliable numbers. It would have been easier and less work to do, and there would be less reason for criticism. You might get an A for persistence in a debate, but not for proper use of statistics. Yes, measurements are never perfect, but that is no excuse to measure with a rubber band. But as long as you insist on using shaky statistics you can expect that kind of criticism.
Anyway, the paper does criticize how you arrived at those numbers. You should be able to admit that, even if you disagree with the criticism itself. Order 00:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Which newspaper article specifically criticized our methodology for saying "6 times more liberal"? Let's look at what the article actually said.--Aschlafly 08:50, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Among the two references there was only one newspaper, so it should be obvious that the The Star was meant. And you put the point #14 yourself up [21] in October, so I guess that you took a look at the references. Maybe you didn't read all of it, since the article spends three paragraphs on the six-times figure, and they are not positive. Or maybe you also just forgot since October. But are you really asking that we repeat the excerpts that are critical and sometimes even condescending towards CP and yourself here? It might give the impression that you want to get victimized, but I don't see how that would further the discussion. The Star article has been cited on this page for those that are interested. Order 09:35, 11 January 2008 (EST)
I'm simply asking what specifically in the reference (the Star article is it, I suppose) that you think justifies the Wikipedia statement 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." (emphasis added)--Aschlafly 09:53, 11 January 2008 (EST)
It says nothing about it, Andy. Order 10:31, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Wikipedia's article says that the statistic is criticized for its unscientific derivation, reflecting the wording in the article, and Andy, your own words. Wisdom89 12:55, 11 January 2008 (EST)
From the Star: "Schlafly makes a number of claims about Wikipedia. The most sensational is that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public." How does Schlafly know? He takes a list of a few hundred Wikipedia users who have self-identified as liberal compared to those who say they're conservative – about three times more. He multiples this by the fact that, he says, twice as many Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal, to come up with the number. The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation. He agrees that it's not a scientific, 'but it's the best means we have, and no one has disputed that Wikipedia editors are more liberal.'" Wisdom89 12:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)
First, you're quoting the statement substituted by Wikipedia after we pointed out the bias and defect in Wikipedia's harsher statement. Second, the Star article only references "unscientific" in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific. So am I the real source of Wikipedia's claim that "the statistic is criticized for its unscientific derivation"???? That's Wikipedia bias in action: twisting and turning to do anything it can to smear a conservative source, argument, person, or movement, and hence the need for this list of examples.--Aschlafly 13:34, 11 January 2008 (EST)
That is uttter nonsense - it doesn't matter when it was altered, either statement on Wikipedia (back months ago and what it says right now) made it patently clear that the author of the Star was being critical of YOUR derivation/extrapolation. He calls it "hardly a solid base" and "sensational". Quit trying to dismiss or dodge Conservapedia's errors by regurgitating the same old rhetoric over and over again. "Smear", "liberal bias" etc..etc.. For once admit that maybe, just maybe some of these examples are misleading, obsolete, hair splitting or flat out wrong. Wisdom89 17:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Sorry, "Wisdom", I'm afraid that you're the one in denial. Wikipedia did smear us, then changed the smear (without apology by Wikipedia or admission by you) to something less objectionable but still misleading. I admitted to the reporter that the "6 times" was not scientific, and the reporter wrote that. It is still not accurate, though not as bad as before, for Wikipedia to claim that my own admission is support for its statement that "the statistic is criticized for its unscientific derivation". Nobody ever claimed it was a scientific derivation!--Aschlafly 17:15, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Andy, I would appreciate it if you would not condescend to me by placing my alias in quotations. Thank you. Wisdom89 17:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)
I guess the case that Andy wants to make is that it wasn't the Star criticizing CP, but that it was Andy himself. So apparently it was Andy who called it the methodology "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", and that he himself then went on and called it "unscientific". The Star was apparently just reporting. Order 20:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, Andy did indeed call it "unscientific" (which it most certainly is), but it was the Star itself that reported the claim was "sensational" (the MOST sensational of them all, actually) and "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", unless you were just being sarcastic and I missed it : ). But still, the only thing that gives me grief is the (seemingly) sheer inability of any Conservapedia operator to just admit when something might be inapplicable or incorrect about this list. Sure there are biases on Wikipedia, but I get the feeling this is more about racking up negative points against Wiki instead of "getting the truth out". Wisdom89 21:20, 11 January 2008 (EST)
"Wisdom", the point here concerns the prior smear by Wikipedia, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. And as to your choosing the name "Wisdom", is there an innocent explanation for that, or is it another liberal attempt to appear smarter than conservatives??--Aschlafly 22:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)
It isn't that I'm not willing to acknowledge a smear (in yours eyes), it's more like I feel you're hyperbolizing by referring to it as such. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that in its past and present form, the statements are quite fair. If you want, since I heavily contribute to that article and revert vandalism/POV on a regular basis, I can change the wording to something along the lines of "the statistic has been referred to as sensational etc..etc.." It's probably more appropriate anyway. Now, the second point. My user name. Technically, this should be of no concern of yours, and the fact that you question it as you did further solidifies my belief that liberal paranoia and antipathy permeates this site, however, I will answer it. It's completely innocent. I've gone by Wisdom89 on the internet since 1997. The only reason it was chosen was because of a gift an old friend gave me. I don't really need to go into any further detail do I? I do not feel liberals, conservatives, or moderates (whatever) are more intelligent than one another since I tend to eschew using the terms in the first place. That is the extent of it. I am liberal, if I HAD to pick a side of the spectrum, but this doesn't mean everything I say is a reflection of that term. I am my own person. Silly political vernacular doesn't define character, especially since I'm "conservative" on a number of issues. Anyway, that's enough talk about that stuff. Cheers Andy. Wisdom89 09:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)
I am bit confused about what the smear exactly is, but it seems like you take case with the assertion that you were criticized for the unscientific derivation, and not with the label unscientific itself. We all agree that the figure is hardly based on solid numbers, we all agree that it is unscientific. The smear seem to be the suggestion that this is criticism, while it it is simply a fact, and Andy was apparently the first who stated this fact. I agree, Wikipedia should take out the critics, and simply state that the numbers are unscientific and hardly based on solid numbers, without any reference to the alleged critics. Order 23:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Offensive Content

Has anyone considered that Conservapedia articles might actually be fairly graphic in nature? The words "inserted anally" come up fairly frequently. Hmuckabee

That's nothing. You should see the pictures the exhibitionist editors add to the sex-related articles. Well, no, you actually shouldn't see them, and neither should kids. Sadly, Wikipedia makes no attempt to shield children from these images. Jinxmchue 13:12, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Actually, I'm wrong. WP does make an attempt to shield children. At the very bottom of every page (which would be after all the content in each page has been viewed by children) in small print is a link to their various disclaimers. These include "USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK" and "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE." Many of the images and information WP articles contain is as bad as any pornographic website, yet does WP care? Of course not. If your kids stumble upon offensive material on WP, well, that's YOUR fault, of course. Jinxmchue 13:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
I thought it was common knowledge among Conservapedians that Wikipedia is not censored. I could google any objectionable pornographic word I'd like and receive 10,000 pornographic hits, or sites which contain extremely offensive ads and banners. I mean really, the internet itself is an unholy cesspool for that stuff, not just Wikipedia. Wisdom89 15:51, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Well, at least pornographic websites make some kind of attempt (however minimal) to keep kids away before they see anything. And Google can be set to filter results. Of course, such filtering does not exclude Wikipedia articles, which are often near or at the top of the results. I mean, who needs pornographic websites when you have Wikipedia? (Makes me glad I downloaded a filter for our computer that can block specific articles/categories on Wikipedia.) Jinxmchue 16:41, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Disruptive userboxes in wikipedia

Wikipedia has several disruptive userboxes. They include userboxes supporting cuba, Iraqi insurgency etc. I want to bring this fact. --Dendronicus 10:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I am here giving some examples of these disruptive userboxes[22]:

  1. Userbox with a text "This user believes that communism is an ideal system of government, in theory"
  2. Userbox with a text "This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms"
  3. Userbox with a text "This user is pro-Cuba"
  4. Userbox with a text "This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation"
  5. Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 2,000,000 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
  6. Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 654,965 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"

I have given here only few examples of the disruptive userboxes which are present in wikipedia. --Dendronicus 10:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Yet you leave out the hundreds of alternative user boxers. Nice going Wisdom89 11:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)

nummer fortie one

I do not get it. can sumone help me? What is wrong with 99.84% ? I guess I do not get per cents so good.--Dagg 19:47, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Ron Paul Newsletters

The assertion that the newsletters gave tactical advice to militias is not unsubstantiated. Below are some gems found in the January 1995 issue. Maybe we need to list all of these so nobody thinks the statement is unfounded?

Local militias called "one of the most encouraging developments in America"
"I want to share with you these rules from the Sons of Liberty, a militia in Northern Alabama..."
Small things are harder to find. Keep the group size down.
If you have more than one rifle, store it in a hideaway spot. Remember to store ammunition with it, enough ammo for at least one combat load.
Avoid the phone whenever possible, and never speak in plain English about club business.
Destroy any documents or discs that become unnecessary.
Most groups meet under cover of another activity: a gun club, Bible study, self-help group, even a bowling league.
And where is the substantiation that these are "right-wing"? It doesn't exist. This is yet another Wikipedia smear. Moreover, the adjective "tactical advice" is misleading and inflammatory.--Aschlafly 21:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Why is it misleading? Read what I posted -- they are pieces of advice regarding tactics. Hence, tactical advice. Paisan30 21:57, 14 January 2008 (EST)
I did. You should read what I posted. You didn't even quote Wikipedia's smear correctly, and the defects in your denial grow from there.--Aschlafly 22:14, 14 January 2008 (EST)
I wrote some of Wikipedia's "smear", and I didn't quote anything other than "tactical advice". Paisan30 23:22, 14 January 2008 (EST)
You're not making sense. Wikipedia's unsubstantiated smear includes (as an example) the statement that "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories." You've cited nothing to justify the smear of "right-wing", and you've shown nothing to justify the inflammatory statement that this "gave tactical advice," which has military-like connotations. In fact, what you describe does not appear to be "advice" at all, but merely a factual description of club rules of interest for various proper reasons.
If you wrote that sentence "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories," then you should consider becoming a fulltime smear artist on Wikipedia. It's clever in the way that it smears the reputation of a good man.--Aschlafly 23:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

#6: Axiom of Choice

The Axiom of Choice may be somewhat controversial in an abstract mathematical way. But what does it have to do with liberal bias? And how did it get to #6? MilesAgain 06:44, 15 January 2008 (EST)

A simple solution to grievances

I gotta say, if you think that wikipedia is missing an important point on a topic, edit the page to include it. Is that not kind of the point? --Falcifer 17:02, 16 January 2008 (EST)

No, my friend, you're missing the point. Wikipedia enforces its bias. Edits that remove liberal bias there are reverted. It is a waste of time to try to remove liberal bias. It's like trying to keep the Titanic afloat by using buckets to expel the water.--Aschlafly 17:11, 16 January 2008 (EST)
I will use the number two entry as an example:

"Wikipedia's entry on Benazir Bhutto has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was pro-life and led the movement against the United Nations' creating a new international right to abortion."

You mean that a person adding a section describing Bhutto's work on abortion and citing, for example, a page from a reputable autobiography of her, will find that this addition will be removed? I'm sorry if I sound incredulus.--Falcifer 17:25, 16 January 2008 (EST)

The main premise of Wikipedia.

If you think it's wrong, you can attempt to fix it. If the page is locked, discuss on the talk page. I honstly fail to understand how this is all lost on every last one of you... Barikada 22:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Lynch mobs operate with essentially the same procedure.--Aschlafly 22:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)
So does democracy. Barikada 22:54, 17 January 2008 (EST)
No, democracies can't survive with mob rule like what goes on at Wikipedia. Fundamental restraints on bias and bullying are essential for democracy to survive and thrive. Like, for example, a constitution that is objectively enforced against the mob to curb its bias and excesses.--Aschlafly 23:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)
And therefore you must not attempt to fix things? Barikada 23:15, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Many of us, including myself, have attempted to fix things at Wikipedia -- with all the success of someone who tries to object to what a mob is doing in a lawless society. Ron Paul's page on Wikipedia, for example, was locked. Most of the other examples of smears and gossip cannot be fixed. The mob won't allow it.--Aschlafly 23:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)
See the first post I made here. Everything you just said is tackled there.
On another note, out of naked self-interest, this is my last post on this topic for now, for I wish to remain here. Barikada 23:27, 17 January 2008 (EST)
I've tried discussing things on talk pages, only to face a brick wall of opposition to anything I say (well, anything they don't agree with). I've seen others do the same, but with less self-control have hit back uncivilly at the brick wall, which then gives the brick wall cause to block or ban them. Philip J. Rayment 00:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)
*stares at PJR's reply* ...wait, are we discussing Wikipedia or Conservapedia here? --Jenkins 10:05, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Dunno, but it is a beautifully coherent metaphor. Barikada 19:26, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I thought Wikipedia was for the most part unbiased, then I came here and realized they were biased...against shabby articles with outdated unverifiable sources, and against hate crime. Thus Conservapedia was born. --Rainedaye 13:56, 18 January 2008 (EST)

"Rainedaye", you have 11 edits here, and they are all talk, talk, talk. No substantive edits. Let me guess: you're another liberal, right? Oh how liberals love to talk, talk, talk. It's so obvious.--Aschlafly 15:04, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Most of the operators here love to "talk talk talk" just as much as anyone - sometimes even more than the average user. Does that make them liberal too? Wisdom89 16:26, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Heh, hard to edit when the pages with the most problems are locked! And I have to be a liberal because I think some articles are grossly biased? What can I say, you caught me red-handed Aschlafly! --Rainedaye 19:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Bahaha is this meant to be funny? I hope so because Aschlalfy cracks me up. MetcalfeM

Sudden Jihad Syndrome

Wikipedia has refused to have an article on Sudden Jihad Syndrome despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including neoconservative academic Daniel Pipes. and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.

Okay, even ignoring spelling and grammar here, I don't see (1) how this is bias and (2) how the bit about multiple commentators is true in any practical way.

Wikipedia deleted the article because it's a term that's basically only used by Pipes. He came up with it, he once got referenced using it ("But it sure looks like another case of what Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum, calls 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome.'" - The Courier Editorial, which would most likely just count as being mentioned in passing), but that's it. I don't see the "multiple commentators", unless you really go into semantics and stretch the understanding of what counts as a reliable source.

The WP discussion shows that the article, just like ours, had tons of original research, using sources that don't mention SJS at all to show how it fits into a pattern that's wide enough to make every Islamist on planet Earth fit into it:

Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers. -- Daniel Pipes, "Fighting Militant Islam, Without Bias"

Sorry, but Wikipedia had a good point deleting it. It's not liberal bias or some other sort of bias, it's "You didn't show reliable sources that actually use the term in a notable way, and your article was full of original research."

And the same goes for our article, by the way. --Jenkins 10:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)

#46 ("Worldwide view" is fictional terminology) Is based on a seriously flawed premise

I have mainly come to CP because it looks to be a better attempt to live up to what WP aspired to (i.e. a factual encyclopaedia); but #46 in this list is itself an example of axiomatic bias. "American treatment" of topics may be all well and good, but it should be recognised as such, and it should be recognised that the "American treatment" may differ not just from other parts of the world but even from the rest of the world (and yes, those are different concepts).

For years I have been involved in online communities, and often US-ism has been a running joke that only the Americans could not see. So yes, there is a worldwide view in a general sense, and there are also many regional/national/cultural views other than the American view that should at least be acknowledged.

WP's "American" banner has been one of the practices that I have enjoyed. If I see that someone has acknowledged that the topic/article has a US POV (hmm.. even despite NPOV policy) then the US-centric tone does not bother me so much, as it is at least overt.

I am only new to CP and I have jumped in and commented much earlier than I intended to, but my chief frustration with WP has been militant editors with an axiomatic materialism so basic that they cannot even acknowledge it. The value that I saw in CP is that the axioms are expressed and acknowledged. It unsettled me a little to see a suggestion that a US-centric POV is in place but not acknowledged. Now if it is in place AND acknowledged then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem. (I'm from Oz, BTW).LowKey 21:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I know what you mean. I've had to add things like "in America" to a lot of the legal pages... and an "in English" to the vowels page. Ethnocentricity? Nahhh. Barikada 21:54, 24 January 2008 (EST)
You may be interested in my reply to another editor on this general topic here. Philip J. Rayment 00:45, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Possible new entry

In the Wikipedia entry for T.H. Huxley, the following sentence can be found: Persistent types sat rather uncomfortably next to Darwin's more fluid ideas; despite his intelligence, it took him a surprisingly long time to appreciate some of the implications of evolution. (See the following link: ) DanH 02:41, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Reversion explained

Don't insert liberal bias into the content page. Please.--Aschlafly 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Didn't seem terribly biased to me. After all, Conservapedia has, in the past (But fixed by yours truly) had sources posted that did nothing to confirm the relevant subject matter. Example being the Video games article, first paragraph. Barikada 00:11, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Mistakes are not bias. The Wikipedia hatchet job on its entry for Conservapedia is not the result of mistakes, but of bias. That is obvious enough, wouldn't you agree?--Aschlafly 00:33, 27 January 2008 (EST)
If you say so, sir. Barikada 00:36, 27 January 2008 (EST)

What bias? We all agree that the Star in its article on 11 March 2006 mentions that the numbers are unscientific [23]. Hence, the statement that "the two citations (...) say nothing about extrapolation or credibility", as the previous and now current version say, is not true, there is no denying about that. Actually, you confirmed yourself that the Star article mentions that the numbers are unscientific, twice, but added you that it was you yourself who called them them unscientific first. Here and here. And this is exactly what my last edit reflected; that you were the source for the "criticism", and that Wikipedia twisted it to make it look like the newspaper criticized you. Or how else do we have to interpret your statement "the Star article only references 'unscientific' in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific." Order 05:51, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Explanation for the second reversion: "credibility" is not the same as "scientific". No one claimed that the "6 times more liberal" statement is "scientific". But no one seriously disputes that Wikipedia is far more liberal than the American public. The statement is credible, and it's false and misleading for Wikipedia to claim that newspapers criticized that statement for lack of credibility.--Aschlafly 09:08, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Someone criticized the six-times number for lack of credibility in the Star, and not the general statement that Wikipedia is somewhat more liberal than the American public. Your own reversion now says "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." Do you deny that this refers explicitly to the six-times statistics?
You told us that you yourself were the source for all the criticism in The Star article, and not the journalist. It says "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation." Did you tell the Star this or is this the journalist speaking? The article can be misunderstood on this point, so could you clarify this point. Order 09:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Why are people still insisting that the "extrapolation and credibility" statement remain in the first place? Either change the tense to the past, or remove it completely. Wikipedia does not use those words, and hasn't for the past 4-5 months. Wisdom89 12:45, 27 January 2008 (EST)
The first half of the entry is outdated, and the second is plain incorrect. Anybody, who looks at either the Wikipedia article or the Star article will see that in a glance. They probably conclude that CP is sloppy about their entries, and not exactly trustworthy. The current entry should obviously change, since it outdated and wrong. If it is true that Andy is the source of the criticism in the article, and not the journalist, then the WP article is indeed giving the wrong impression. If the journalist is the source for the criticism then this entire item is somewhat pointless. Andy should get the benefit of the doubt when he claims that he was the source for the criticism, but given that he tries to change the subject, rather than answer it, feeds suspicions that he tries to duck this simple question, maybe because he wants to come back on his earlier statements that he was the source of the criticism. It becomes a bit dubious. Order 06:44, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Uhm, percentages

97? I don't mean to bring math into this, but how many Wikipedia articles are there, exactly? Something on the order of 2,200,000 (English version alone)? I think it speaks to that websites wealth of integrity that a RESPONSE website, whose own motto, "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is clearly (alright, it MIGHT take TWO braincells to decrypt) a slight towards its larger, more heavily-trafficked cousin (twice removed, thrice reverted), can only find 97 faults. There's practically nothing here that alleges WIDESPREAD, rampant uncontrollable lying on Wikipedia. There is are few fleeting references to over-hyped John Birch Society affilitations, which is kind of like saying Wikipedia misrepresents a congessmans's Kevin Bacon Number. This website, while heavily enjoyed, appreciated, and useful to many people (myself included!), doesn't have to read like some Bizarro-world. And, for now, it does. Repub236 13:36, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Perhaps 75% of Wikipedia is pure junk: unsuccessful rock bands, obscure liberal journalists, unheard-of towns, Hollywood trivia, obscenity-related entries, public high schools, etc. Of the remaining 25%, much of it is biased, incomplete, erroneous, etc. But we're not going to spend all our time identifying the thousands of problems. When something on Wikipedia is particularly flagrant, we've identified it to the extent we spend time on this.
I wonder if your "percentages" analysis would apply to, say, the percentage of time that a president lies? No, I don't think a comment like, "he only lies 1% of the time" would be acceptable to anyone.--Aschlafly 15:24, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Are your numbers based on an analysis of a random sample of Wikipedia articles? It has been suggested that we should do this, rather than rely on anecdotal evidence. A reference that gives a bit more background information on these numbers would be very much appreciated. Order 17:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Wikipedia does break down the articles into categories, which are aligned and categorized into various "projects". It would very easy to slice that baby open and count the rings. Sorry, anti-choicers; I meant baby in the ecstatic figurative way:) By the way, a President who only lies 1% of the time? Let him out of the duffel bag and behind a podium!!! Repub236 17:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Sure, you could do it this way. You could also use the random article feature and do a study on a thus obtained sample. Either way, it is definitely possible, and has been suggested for a long time. Apparently somebody has done this, given that Andy uses the outcomes of such a study, but it would be nice if he would provide a reference for the rest of us. We could then tell how the study was conducted, rather than guess. It would be easy to do it, but why do it, if it has already been done. Order 18:14, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Agreed. Either one works for me; perhaps this wasn't the most direct route to a satisfactory..."inquiry" / "impeachment of Conservapedia axioms"...but I think that's a good course of action: Let's get some mad scientific method skills up in this slice. (Sorry). Repub236 20:34, 30 January 2008 (EST)

more on "level of support for evolution"

The Wikipedia article is constantly edited to make sure that it does not actually address the subject, as stated in its own title. There are redundant paragraphs about how almost all "scientists" (computer scientists? political scientists?) alledgedly support evolutionism. What is (usually) missing is the essential truth necessary for the article to be useful - what are the views of the general population? The polls by Newsweek, Gallup, and CBS show quite similar results. The numbers can easily be verified online. However, against WP's own stated policies, they are removed from the article again and again. Perlster

Bias check

Could I get a check on Wikipedia's History of Minnesota article to determine where it's biased and where it's just wrong? The article talks about the increasing role of government in the early 20th century, and it talks about Hubert Humphrey and the rise of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, so those issues in themselves may be questionable. --Elkman 11:05, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Cobb County stickers

The material that was removed and then re-added reads like editorialization and could easily be considered synthesis. Someone could try using those reasons to remove the material again, but I doubt the evolution cabal would let it stand. Jinxmchue 19:36, 22 February 2008 (EST)

It's particularly bizarre how the evolutionists insist on labeling as "creationist" anything they disagree with, even though (like the stickers) it is not creationism, as illustrated by the biased edits to that entry on Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 19:40, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Point-by-point analysis

So last night I went though each point on here, and I responded to some of them that I felt were either insufficient or just plain wrong. Here is my list (all numbers as of 10 pm on 2/22/08):

2. How is this bias? 3, 8, 18, 52, 54: merge; these are all the same point 4. How do we know this isn’t true? 5. Not mentioning every detail about someone is not bias, but the overall point is good. 7. This is not bias just because a conservative said it. 9. Factually true, but how is it bias? 10. This has been fixed. Even if it was still there, this would be more against Christians because they believe that it is immoral. 12. This has been fixed. 14. True, but it’s not bias to look at the worldwide view. 15. Fixed, and we do need a source to back it up. 17. Vandalism is not bias (although it is a problem). 19. Not really bias (although, again, it is a problem). 21. If there is a source saying this, then this is not bias. 23. This is not bias, although I see how it might be taken that way. 24. It is stated in the article that people find it improper. 27. Vandalism is not liberal at all. It’s usually someone being stupid. 29. It’s the same thing for conservative. The stated examples aren’t bias. 30. This has been fixed. 31. I agree that it’s kind of overboard, but they don’t “promote” it. Also, that is not bias. 32, 46: merge; same point 35. Not bias. 36. Not bias. 37. Not bias, and it had just been founded. 38. Perhaps they did not know about that paper. The other examples are good though. 39. How much they donate is irrelevant to what they believe in. 40. It does not prominently feature that. 43. There is bias, but it seems like it goes both ways. 44. “Citation needed” does not mean that it may not be true, just that they need a citation. And first you complain that they don’t have it, but then you complain that they do? 47. Not bias. 49. No, a worldwide view means exactly that: a worldwide view. 50: Not bias. 51. They say almost exactly the same thing on Wikipedia. 55. Not really bias. 56. It’s not bias to not mention every detail. 57. May I see the methods you used to gather those results? 59. At the bottom of every page, things like this are addressed. 62. It is true, though absurd. 64. This has been fixed. 65. I see many options besides atheist. 68. All of these have been fixed. 69. Not bias. 71. Neither of the claims are supported well, and being a worldwide encyclopedia means it can’t just be American. 74. Not bias. 75. Meanwhile the same page is locked here, forcing only one side of the issue on us. 77. Fixed, and how do we know that? Meanwhile the same article about Conservapedia was blocked here. 78. Not bias. 82. Not bias. 83. Not bias. 85. Not bias, and you even say it has been fixed. 86. Not gossip or bias. 87. Not gossip or bias. 89. Not bias. 92. To answer the question at the end: no. 94. Not bias. 95. Not bias. 96. Not bias. 97. Fixed. 98. True, but they definitely are in the minority, so they would want to self-identify more. It’s like saying people with hair have no category, but people with no hair do, so they're anti-hair. 99. Not really bias. 100. Source for second statement? 102. Not bias.

And sorry for the wall of writing, I can't make it a list like it should be, with bullet points. --Blabberno 13:40, 23 February 2008 (EST)

One more thing: if you just decide to block me, rather then actually respond, you're wasting a chance to make your own site better. I support this site, but I feel like much of the list is erronous in some way. --Blabberno 13:44, 23 February 2008 (EST)

"Blabberno", your dialog is unreadable. Pick your best 5 examples, and I'll reply. In the meantime, please contribute in a substantive way while you're here, so that all can learn with you. Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:50, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry, I did kind of realize it was hard to read. I'll choose my best few responses (in my opinion):

3, 8, 18, 52, 54: merge; these are all the same point that Wiki does not cite things correctly, although the actual point is accurate.

Those are separate examples of liberal bias on Wikipedia. It's not merely that Wikipedia is inaccurate, it is that it is biased. You seem to be missing that basic point, despite the many examples. Perhaps what is needed is even more examples, not less, so that you can finally see the pattern.--Aschlafly 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

39. How much they donate is irrelevant to what they believe in.

Wow, what a statement. How someone spends his money is highly relevant to reflect what his beliefs are. Surely you don't dispute that.--Aschlafly 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

44. “Citation needed” does not mean that it may not be true, just that they need a citation. And first you complain that they don’t have it, but then you complain that they do?

First we complained that Wikipedia censored the religious reference, and then (after Wikipedia reacted) we complained that they downplayed and discredited it. Is that so difficult for you to follow?--Aschlafly 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

75. Meanwhile the same page is locked here, forcing only one side of the issue on us.

Our entry includes many quotes from the "other side." And we don't censor all opposition while pretending to be neutral, as Wikipedia does. As above, this item #75 is right on the mark.--Aschlafly 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

77. Fixed, and how do we know that? Meanwhile the same article about Conservapedia was blocked here.

Your comment is incoherent. Wikipedia censored and deleted an entry about its bias, as I recall. There is no such entry there now.--Aschlafly 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

98. True, but they definitely are in the minority, so they would want to self-identify more. It’s like saying people with hair have no category, but people with no hair do, so they're anti-hair.

Again, your criticism is incoherent. Fairness dictates that having a self-identification for one type of group requires having a self-identification for the alternative type of group.--Aschlafly 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry again about the bad formatting. When I originally did it, it was in the right type: line by line. Is there a way to make it the correct format? --Blabberno 15:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)

To skip to the next line in wiki formatting, type in <br> after the previous line. But in any case... none of these are going to be changed. Feebasfactor 15:51, 23 February 2008 (EST)
There's two other ways to do it. One is to simply leave a blank line between each entry. The other is to start each line with a colon. The colon actually causes it to indent, but (a) an indented list in your post is not inappropriate, and (b) lines beginning with colons don't wrap onto the previous line. Philip J. Rayment 04:16, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Right, because there is no logical reason for changing any of these items. Now if we allowed liberal logic, then the outcome would be different.--Aschlafly 19:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools