Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Unfair Bias at Conservapedia

I'm an American and a Conservative, and although I have realized that articles that are subject to heavy debate have a hard time being totally unbiased, a lot of what Conservapedia says about them is totally unfair, and very biased.

An article with noticeable bias at Wikipedia is the article on Intelligent Design, other ones, especially with reference to politics or religion tend to have some bias as well, even if it's hidden a bit more. In a lot of ways that makes sense-considering that biased people wrote it it's basically impossible to have an article without bias. Conservapedia doesn't even try.

The articles that Conservapedia does complain about are for the most part very small things, mostly things that aren't even there anymore--in a free open content, wiki dictionary like Wikipedia mistakes can be made by anybody, and corrected by anybody, a system that works very well--as can be seen by Conservapedia copying that system.

I love these unsigned criticisms by someone who says he's a "conservative" and even an "American". Does anyone really think that the preface "I am a conservative and _____________" gives extra weight to what fills in the blank? Well, I'm a conservative and I don't think that preface gives one extra weight!--Aschlafly 00:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
It was user Jackpole, and he added it on 24 March.
I think you are right to not look at his political convictions to judge his comment. Why should it matter that he is conservative? You should look at the content of what he says. So, what do you think about Jackpoles observation that the things in Wikipedia that Conservapedia complains about are for the most part very small things? Order 3 April, 17:15 AEST.

The center of the world

Sorry to tell you this, but USA are NOT the center of the world.

"About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." " ...

What a joke. Wikipedia is not to be read or written only by americans. Proutgirl 09:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Reply (to this)

Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --Order 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)
There were around 50, and they weren't self selected. Karmafist 15:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
How did you get the sample, if I may ask? -- Order 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. Karmafist 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke

I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting List of wikipedians by religion. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- Order 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

Polls show that America has more than three times higher percentaeg Christians (77% in 2001) than Wikipedia (23% in 2006) (higher percentage Christian Wikimedias though 29%)

Thanks for proving my point. -- Order 18 March, 21:40 (AEST)

I really feel sorry for Christians who are forced by both conservatives and liberals to be grouped with mind-numbing idiots like the people responsible for this site. Yes, a really large majority of Americans are Christians. A majority of Americans are Democrats too. Hmmm... this would indicate that most liberals are Christians too. Okay, so I'll admit that there are probably a greater percentage of conservatives who are Christian than Liberals, but nonetheless, we all are fully aware that this is a country comprised primarily of Christians. You know what kills me? There are a good number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who are very conservative. I wonder how many of them vote Democrat because they're turned off by fundamentalist Christians who dominate the right wing of America? I have many Muslim friends (no, they're not terrorists). They supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as did I--and still do) and by and large are fairly conservative. In fact, I think that in many ways, they'd have a lot in common with conservative Christians, if they weren't marginalized in this country. They'd probably vote Republican if we didn't continually target Muslims with suspicion. Conservative Christians like to pretend that they welcome "good" Muslims, then they start throwing around statistics stating the "overwhelming" number of Christians in this country as justification or explanation for anything they feel necessary. Being a predominately Christian nation does not mean that policy should therefore be Christian. It means that we all get to see Christmas decorations put up every year, we have to wait in line at all the stores during December... in other words, our culture is visibly affected by Christianity in all sorts of ways. That's okay, as far as I'm concerned. It's not okay when we try to make Christianity into the driving force of policy in our secular nation. Conservatives love to quote the second amendment (which I support, incidentally) but love to forget what freedom of religion means. And guess what Christians, when you write articles that are slanted toward a Christian viewpoint, you can no longer claim to be attempting to represent truth. Instead, you're representing your own point of view. While it is true that no one can escape their own point of view when writing an article, approaching the article with the perspective of "I'm right" rather than at least a willingness to attempt to look at the other side dispassionately is patently worthless. If you wish to write an opinion piece, make it an opinion piece. I can take far more out of someone's opinion when they legitimately represent it as such. Oh, by the way, just because you think that your religion is correct doesn't mean that God agrees with your interpretation of the scriptures. So be careful. Who knows, maybe God will condemn you instead of me!

Aren't all of the groups on Wikipedia self-selected samples? Doesn't that mean that any statistics you use when referring to Wikipedians things to be taken with a grain of salt, if not entirely irrelevant? IMFromKathlene 15:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Ratio (again)

This ratio is totally bogus because the words are loaded. The reason that the number of people who say that they are conservative has been increasing for the last two decades is not because America is becoming more conservative, but rather because the conservative movement has made a concerted propaganda effort to demonize the word "liberal" and prop up the word "conservative". The proof is in the pudding: If you instead ask people what their political views are, the evidence suggest that people overwhelmingly entertain liberal positions on most issues. For example:

(1) As of 3/11/2007, 69% of the country feels that the country is "on the wrong track" after 12 years of Republican control of Congress and 6 years of a Republican president.

(2) 59% of Americans have an "unfavorable" opinion of the republican party, compared to only 43% for the democratic party.

(3) 51% of the public respond that they "feel closer" to the democratic party than the republican party, compared to ony 40% for the republican party.


Other studies show that most Americans disagree with the republican position on a whole host of issues, including: the international criminal court, global warming, protecting the environment, the Kyoto Treaty, nonproliferation treaty, etc. Interestingly, people who watch Fox News tend to believe that the Bush/Republican position is similar to their own position even though that is not true, which bolsters my suggestion that the conservative propagandists misinform the public. This is all very well documented in the PIPA study about misperceptions in the media, which can be found here:

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been conclusively demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), then it might be somewhat reasonable. Geekman314(contact me) 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--Aschlafly 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
No, it's plainly not. If 2:1 is a 200% liberal bias, then that makes 1:1, a completely unbiased ratio, 100% liberal. According to your definition of ratios, the only non-liberal-bias is no liberals at all. So what makes your idea of ratios the "only sensible way possible"? --LutherBifteck 16:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
What? Liberal math? You divide the fraction of liberals in Wikipedia (3/4) by the fraction of liberals in America (1/3), and you get (9/4). Thats 5th grade math, not liberal math. And you graduated from Harvard? NickJ10 16:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Folks, I've asked someone to propose a different definition of liberal bias. My definition makes the most sense because its scale is from 0 to infinity, like the Kelvin temperature scale preferred by scientists. No one has proposed a plausible alternative scale for liberal bias. Based on the obvious definition, my math is correct.--Aschlafly 20:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
What kind of argument is this? It scales from 0 to infinity? There are many continuous monotonous functions that have an [0, infinity] range. Actually, there are infinitely many. There are even uncountably many. --Order 18 March, 14:00 (AEST)
  • First, you use raw numbers of a self selected group to come to do your statistics. Any conclusion drawn from it is speculative at best. A no-no in statistics 101.
  • What raw data can do shows this example: In the harris poll 34% of all people are conservative. Your raw data on Wikipedia gives that 36% are conservative. This means that wikipedia is at least as conservative as the american public.
  • You assume that articles written by a conservative are automatically convervatively biased, and articles written by liberal liberally biased.
  • You simple forget about the 40% moderates in the Harris poll. Your stament six time more liberal than American public compares liberals to the American public as a whole, including moderates, your math however doesn't count moderates.
  • What you need to compare, if anything, compare the percentages of the overall population. Because with your math it doesn't matter if there are 66% conservatives in a population vs 33% liberals, or 12% vs 6%, or two conservatives vs one liberal.
What raw data from a self selected sample, with your approach to fractional math, can do was demonstarted in Wikipedia 87.5% more New Jersyian than America and Wikipedia 75 times as biased towards Erdos than average mathematicians. Talking about fun statistics. --Order 18 March, 12:00 (AEST)

We had an editing conflict, so here my answer to your question on how to define liberal bias.

  • You say Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public..
  • This means you compare Liberals to the American public.
  • The American public includes Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives.
  • What you need to compare is the percentage of liberals in America vs the percentage of liberally biased articles in Wikipedia. To obtain an estimate for the latter just look at 100 random pages (or better 1000), and count the pages that have a liberal bias. Done. --Order 18 March, 12:10 (AEST)
So many times since I joined this site I've seen people argue different points about the 6x more liberal line and every time Aschlafly claims that no one has brought it up before. It's almost a lost cause. Jrssr5 15:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
yeah, I guess intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. Godman 18:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't know why liberals won't admit they are liberals. Conservatives don't try to conceal their views. Why do liberals? No one, not even Jimmy Wales, credibly disputes that Wikipedia editors are more liberal than the American public. Defining a liberal quotient in the most reasonably manner - the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a population - results in the conclusion that the American public has a liberal quotient of 0.5 and Wikipedia has a liberal quotient six times greater, or 3.--Aschlafly 06:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't why you can't admit that you did poor statistics. There is nothing conservative about fudging numbers. The theorem that you want to prove is true. Wikipedia is more liberal. The proof that you give is wrong. There is nothing liberal about the criticism on your proof. Everybody can make a math mistake, but it apparently it costs you to much courage to admit it. You rather call people liberal. User:Order 30 March 10:10 AEST.
I've begged and pleaded with the liberal defenders of Wikipedia to give an alternative definition of a liberal quotient, and then calculate an alternative number of how much more liberal Wikipedia is then the American public. But the more I beg for this, the less they provide an alternative. Liberal quotient only makes sense as a ratio liberals to conservatives, and that is a six-fold difference.--Aschlafly 21:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
What would the Moderate quotient be? --Mtur 21:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  1. I am not sure what the liberals said, but I and a few other suggested that you should compare liberals to the entire population. Because that is exactly what you are saying, when you say Liberal bias compared to the American public. There is no mention of conservative in your own statement.
  2. I admit freely that you begged and pleaded for an answer, and you got plenty of answers. Case is that you are just not reading them. Maybe willful ignorance on your side. And people have begged and pleaded you to read their questions and suggestions and answer them sincerely, instead of your standard answer that they are just liberals.
  3. You repeat all the time that the only reasonable definition of liberal bias is to compare the number of liberals to the number of conservatives. What about the moderates? What about the 129 other categories in the wikipedia list of categories[1]. Your definition is not reasonable at all. Do you know how many people he misunderstood your claim that there are 2:1 conservative vs liberal in America to mean that 2/3 is conservative and 1/3 is liberal. I found at least five. While the actual numbers from the Harris poll show that 1/3 is conservative and 1/6 liberal, and the rest moderate. IIRC even the guy at NPR made this mistake. You are misleading people with your claim.
  4. You really love your 6 times claim but when you look at your numbers, then you find out that all what you say is that the ratio of liberals versus conservatives in a self-selected sample of wikipedia editors is six times the ratio of liberal vs conservatives in the American public, ignoring the majority of moderates for a moment.
  5. My definition of liberal bias can be found just a few lines above your complaint that nobody gave an alternative definition. Wikipedia is defined by it articles, and it should be judged by its articles. Not by a self-selected sample of people who selected liberal or conservative from list of categories that include "Support Romanian-Moldovan reunification", and "Support Transnistria independence".
  6. Suppose your Stats 101 teacher would ask you to 1) calculate the liberal bias in wikipedia 2) compare it to the liberal bias of the American public. What would be your answer?
OrderMarch 31, 00:40 (AEST)
The moderates cancel either other out and generally act like spectators, both in the American public and on wiki-based encyclopedias like Wikipedia. The moderates do not affect the liberal quotient.
Order, you still haven't provided an alternative definition of a liberal quotient for a group. The only sensible definition using a scale between 0 and infinity is the ratio of liberals to conservatives. If you're giving me such grief over such an obvious and simple definition, then I hate to think how you would have objected to Lord Kelvin!--Aschlafly 00:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Your requirement that it has to map from zero to infinity is kind of arbitrary, because you can map any function over an infinite domain to the [zero,infinity] domain. Basic math. No need to invoke Lord Kelvin. Lol. Was it you who complained about elemntary proof, or was it your alter ego?

My alternative definition for liberal bias is either:

  • Liberals/Population, the obvious choice. Ranges from 0 to 1. Choose an suitable transformation, such as x-> tan(x*pi/2) if you want it to range over [zero,infinity]. Or take the negative logarithm of (1-Liberals/Population), to whatever base you like. Would make it behave like pH, or scale of Richter
  • Liberals/(Population-Liberal), the second obvious choice. Maps naturally from zero to infinity.
Both scales above are unacceptable because they don't take into account the number of conservatives. A population of 20% liberal, 80% moderate is obviously very different from a population of 20% liberal, 80% conservative. Yet on your scale, the liberal quotient is identical!--Aschlafly 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Funny, your idea that moderates do not matter. So if you have in a group only 99 moderates, and one Liberal, it would be as Liberal, as if it had 100 Liberals, and no moderates?
You have a point, but often the answer is those two populations are the same in result, because one liberal often does dominate a population having 99 moderates and no conservatives. Moderates are often people who go along to get along. One Hillary Clinton and 99 moderates may be just as liberal, and more effective, than 100 Hillarys (who can then conflict with each other) and no moderates.--Aschlafly 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
You must believe that Hillary is a very powerful person. Quite an admiration for Hillary from a self-confessed conservative. And I am not sure if moderate will like it to learn that you think that they are pushovers.
Anyway, just counting liberals and conservatives doesn't work either. If you think that moderates will under influence of Hillary swing towards Hillary, then compute the non-conservative bias which is (population-conservatives)/population or since you firmly believe in scales from zero to infinity (population-conservatives)/conservatives.
The problem with your liberal bias in a population is that that liberal bias doesn't mention conservatives, but the population. What you compute is the liberal bias/conservative bias quotient. Call it that way, and not liberal bias. Order 3 April, 11:20 AEST

  • Why don't you respond to the fact that your definition of liberal bias in Wikipedia is based on quick sand? Or thin air.
Well, because it isn't. You still haven't proposed a better alternative, despite having weeks to think about this.--Aschlafly 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
First point: why is your statistic based on thin air:
  • It relies on raw data from a self-selected sample (This alone renders any conclusion useless; a stats 101 mortal sin).
  • You compare the outcome of a poll with 3 possible answers, to one with 131 different answers (another stats 101 mortal sin).
  • You compare the outcome of a poll where you can only choose one option, with one where you choose as many options as you like (yet another mortal sin).
  • Wikipedia is not measured by the wikipedians, but by the articles that wikipedians write. (a forgivable sin, good on you)
Second point: That I never proposed an alternative.
And to your surprise: I proposed weeks ago (18 March) how to measure the liberal bias of Wikipedia in this very section. The second itemized list, last bullet point. When do you start to read answers, rather than complain that nobody gives you an answer?
My answer was and is:
  • Select 100 random articles. Wikipedia gives you the option to do so, and it would be a nice random sample. You might want to rule or stubs and articles flagged as POV. So, you click the random article link in Wikipedia, until you got hundred that are not stubs, and not POV.
  • You read those, and classify them, according to your standard, into Conservative, Moderate (NPOV), Liberal, the categories used in the Harris poll. You would have to specify, ideally before you start reading, what it means to be conservative, liberal, and moderate (NPOV).
  • With this raw data you can do all kinds of statistics. Compute liberal bias, conservative bias, and the liberal/conservative bias quotient that you love so much.
It will take an afternoons work, but at the end you will have good numbers. You can then go in good faith on public radio and say "We conducted a study". Order 3 April, 11:20 AEST
  • And I did tell you what my definition of liberal bias in a population is. Twice. In this section, called Ratio (again) , you'll find two itemized lists (lists with bullet points). And the last item in both lists tells you to take the percentage of liberals (which is equal to Liberal/Population). You said now for the second time that nobody gave you an alternative definition. I assume that you are smart guy, so tell me why you didn't see it? And could you for a change start answering questions, rather than evade them.
As explained above, your definition is obviously unacceptable because it doesn't take into consideration the number of conservatives, and the ratio of liberals to conservatives.--Aschlafly 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I said it before liberal bias of the population doesn't mention conservatives. If you find it unacceptable, call it something that mentions conservatives. If you call it simply liberal bias lots of people will be deceived, and lots of people have been deceived. It is in your hand to call it something that mentions conservatives. Order 3 April, 11:20 AEST
BTW: You didn't say before that you "found the definition unacceptable", you said that you "didn't see a definition". If you had said why you found the definition unacceptable, we could have had a short cut. Order 3 April, 11:20 AEST
It's self-evident that the number of conservatives in a population is going to effect its degree of "liberal bias." Your attempt to ignore it is like trying to determine the pH of a solution by looking only at acid OR base added, not both.--Aschlafly 15:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
pH measures the concentration of hydrogen ions. Thats it. User:Order 4 April 10:00 (AEST)
Problems with the ratio. It is self selected. Do you have a conservative user tag on Wikipedia on your account? Conservative doesn't, nor does Ed. Being self selected it is not a random sampling. A raw count includes multiple duplicates - a look at [2] shows "User:Ashley Y", "User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Liberal" and "User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Politics". Are you counting this person three times? You are also discounting moderates [3] shows 41% of the American population are identified as moderate. Compare this to 36% and 18% being conservative and liberal. If you want to compare it to the pH, then you need to look at how many hydrogen ions are in the solution compared to the total amount of the solution. I will point out that American Association for Public Opinion Research would not endorse a self selected poll[4]. --Mtur 15:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Wait ... who's ignoring what? I believe that User:Order is saying (rightfully so) that you are leaving out the importantance of moderates in the equation. User:aschlafly is claiming (incorrectly) that Order is leaving out conservatives. Of course Mtur makes the great point that self selected polls are garbage to start with. Jrssr5 16:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Re: #6 (Great Flood)

And which term do you think people are more familiar with -- Noah's Ark or "Great Flood"? Many civilizations have had a "great flood" story at one point or another, so why cater only to the Christians?

--LutherBifteck 20:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

It gets worse from there. The "Deluge (mythology)" article covers many flood myths, including the Noah one. but here's the start of the Noah section:
Hebrew (Genesis)

Further information about the Genesis version can be found at Noah's Ark.
And the "Noah's Ark" bit is actually a link to the article LutherBifteck mentioned. This "bias" entry is more than silly, it's just plain wrong or misinformed. --Sid 3050 20:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY: The Noah's Ark entry on Wikipedia has the same bias, with numerous references to "myth" and "story", and gratuitous claims that it is rejected today. 60% of Americans accept that the Great Flood occurred. You obviously disagree, which is fine, but your view is way out of step with the American public.--Aschlafly 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

That may very possibly be because I'm not a member of the American public. Not even to mention that Americans aren't the majority of Wikipedia users... (Assuming that you actually meant me... it's hard to tell when your reply comes on the "opening post" level addresses an unnamed "you") --Sid 3050 21:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

All narrative Bible verses are called stories. What word would you like in its place? defines "myth" as "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation". Noah's Ark is the very definition of a myth.
What gratuitious claims? Noah's Ark maybe accepted by 60% of Americans (who you seem to think are the sole users of Wikipedia), but don't the 40% of people who don't believe it count for something? I have not found one thing in that article to the effect "nobody really believes the Great Flood story anymore."--LutherBifteck 21:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
The term "myth" is actually a neutral term when used anthropologically. Myth only has a negative connotation in popular culture. Myths are the stories that cultures inherit that define them as a culture, including their creation stories. Calling them myths neither validates nor invalidates them, but simply explains that they are the stories by which a culture defines itself. Christianity often objects to this term when it is used in regard to Christianity because they either A) Think that myth=lie or B) Equate myths to outdated pagan beliefs (e.g. Greek mythology) that most people no longer have faith in. However, in order to present a balanced point of view, one cannot refer to the creation stories of one religion as fact and another as falsehood. If the word myth bothers you, then go become an anthropologist and work to get the terminology changed. The simple truth is that when you object to a word like "myth" you show your ignorance and your bias. Ignorance because you're interpreting the word incorrectly, and bias because you clearly only want people to believe as you do, a mentality which has been historically responsible for most of the monstrous deaths throughout all of human history. Incidentally, it really doesn't matter if 5% or 100% of Americans believe in the Great Flood--if 75% of Americans believed in the Easter Bunny that wouldn't make him real--there's no conclusive scientific evidence to prove there was a Great Flood (and I've read the counterarguments so don't bother posting them) so until there is, it must be, in all fairness, framed in terms of what it is--a story in the Bible, which is the main foundation of Judaism and Christianity.

In addition to the arguments above, I'd point out that what the majority of Americans believe has precisely no effect on historical fact, unless you happen to believe that opinion in the present changes the past. To list this as an example of bias is ridiculous. The truth is the truth, no matter what people believe. Bias is deliberately distorting the truth, not reporting fact even where it runs contrary to popular belief. The fact remains that there is little or no evidence to support a world covering flood, and wikipedia does a reasonable job of conveying that fact while still presenting dissenting opinion in a neutral light.

Palestinian people on Wikipedia

The Wikipedia article on Palestinian people screams with bias. Time and time again have others tried to remove the top photograph of young children, with no avail. Encyclopedic articles on other cultures and groups of people do not try to invoke sympathy and emotions by posting images of cute and innocent children. This is clearly a propaganda piece, and it holds no merit. There should be a note of this on the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia list. Wikipedialol 20:43, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Boy, you really opened my eyes to Wikipedia's bias here. Not only are children's photographs used there, but it makes no mention of the PLO as a terrorist organization. In fact, it doesn't even define the PLO! Click on the PLO entry, and there is no acknowledgement of its massacre of innocent athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. I'll add this now. Thanks much for pointing this out ... and I hope you can stick around and enter some info here.--Aschlafly 21:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, it's true that the 'Palestinian people' article omits the words "terror" and "terrorism", but the intro to the 'PLO' article contains the following statement:
Not to mention direct European Union subsidies. RobS 12:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Uh... actually, there is acknowledgement of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page, and there's a whole section devoted to PLO as a terrorist organization.--LutherBifteck 21:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
The "acknowledgement" of the Munich Olympics massacre at the bottom of the page is part of a template, not the article itself. Wikipedialol 22:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Why must it be acknowledged in the article itself? "In 1972, a terrorist organization some believe to have been controlled by a faction of the PLO..." If you want to add it in there, go ahead. Just try to keep a neutral tone. --LutherBifteck 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Besides, the Munich massacre has its own article. Why does an already long article need to state stuff that's extensively covered in other articles already? And yes, I agree that several things on the list fall/fell into the "Well, then just add it!" category. But Conservapedia appears to be more proud of pointing and shouting so that it can praise itself for doing so once somebody edits the article. --Sid 3050 22:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
So that it can be immediately shot down and reverted in the name of "fighting vandalism" by some self-appointed administrator? No thanks. The majority of regulars on Wikipedia, who have enough free time to dedicate their lives to editing and monitoring articles, are usually teenagers, unemployed, or both. It is no surprise as to which way they lean on the political spectrum. Wikipedialol 22:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
There are many liberals, especially in the US, that are very supportive of Israel. A POV article on Palestinians isn't proof of a liberal bias, its proof that you'll find, since Wikipedia is international, more pro-palestinian and anti-israelian rethoric than Americans (Conservatives and Liberals) are used to. --Order 18 March 1:50 (AEST)
I'm really starting to think this site is a joke. I mean, you can't really be this... never mind. I don't see anything other than that one picture that indicates that the article is a 'propoganda piece'. And the title of the article is 'Palestinian People'; therefore, the article is about the Palestinian people. NOT the PLO. Palestinian people. The PLO is defined in- you guessed it! - the PLO article! Isn't it starting to come together now? And maybe the same goes for the Munich Massacres! I think we might be on to something! --NickJ10 23:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Three, actually. It is not a matter of posting images of the PLO (how does the PLO keep sneaking into this conversation?), it is a matter of posting images more suitable for an encyclopedia. Perfect examples are Turkish people, Greek people, Finnish people, and Norwegian people. Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between something encyclopedic and something that invokes emotions, like these, three, images.? Wikipedialol 11:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
So it's the same sort of thing as the inclusion of an image of a fetus in utero on the abortion page here on Conservapedia?--Murray 13:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I was referring to Aschlafly's post (second one in this section). Even if the picture does invoke sympathy, it doesnt make the whole article biased. And its been removed now.NickJ10 22:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, at least one person at Wikipedia corrected this biased item. It's a start, and I've reflected that change on the content page here. Add a meaningful admission of terrorism in the entry on the Palestinian people (terrorists are people) and I would update the remainder of Point 2.--Aschlafly 23:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
The key to understanding the way bias is handled on conservapedia is the likes of Barnum and Baily not Merriam and Webster. If you realize this is simply a promotional campiagn built on the poisonous ideas of the radical (not conservative) right and hard core fundamental evangelical 'christians' (as opposed to real world loving Christians) and place its editors in the context of impressarios not scholars, it all makes sense. Hate is this family's value. Godman 09:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for pointing out that it was an article about the Palestinian people, and not the PLO. What is wrong with you people, that you cannot bear seening a picture of kids from another people? What did Jesus say when he saw childern? Take them away because I cannot bear their sight? Guess not --Order 18 March, 11:40 (ASET).

Hi, I'm "Uncle Ed" from Wikipedia, and I'd like to comment on the 'Palestinian' articles. I spent countless hours brokering agreements on terminology and value statements. I am the original author of 'Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian', which I worked out in collaboration with a pro-Arab contributor.

It's not easy to maintain editorial neutrality, especially on topics which attract a majority of Liberal contributors. But it often can be done, with effort and patience. What's the rush? It took God 6 days to create the universe, and for Him "a day is as a thousand years". If He can be patient, shouldn't we? --Ed Poor 12:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, you sound like a terrific editor and you're welcome here anytime. We have many (including myself) who left Wikipedia after tiring of dealing with an overwhelmingly liberal group of editors there. You seem to acknowledge that environment at Wikipedia by referencing "a majority of Liberal contributors."
But the problem is getting worse on Wikipedia, not better. More time is not the solution. Better rules are the answer, which is what we have here. That enables us to be "neutral" to the facts, not to the political views of a majority. If you would like to post a new, factual entry on the Palestinian people here, we would welcome it. Thanks for your thoughts.--Aschlafly 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Hi Ed! We've never talked, but I know you get great respect over there. The points you cite here are so true. Rather than silence a "sparring partner" we actually can sharpen our own skills and outlook. It's not always a matter of converting another editor, being openminded means an editor should be able to recognize thier own flaws by hearing a well reasoned argument. RobS 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
The Wikipedia article "Palestinian people" [5] perhaps doesn't mention "terrorism" because the "Palestinian people" aren't "terrorists" per se. That would be like saying an article on the American people is biased because it doesn't mention "mass murderers" because of, for example, "Charles Manson". If one follows the Wikpedia link to the "Palestine Liberation Organization" [6] it is mentioned that they are thought to be "the richest of all terrorist organizations".
One needn't be to be a rocket scientist to notice how silly some of these examples of bias in Wikipedia are.
They make us Conservatives look like nutjobs.
"And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." (John 8:45)
JC 15:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The Face of Terror: Basque ETA?

As is expected, the "safe" and politically-correct path was taken in choosing an image to post on Wikipedia's article on terrorism. Some of the most prominent and widely recognized terrorist groups in today's world include Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah; all of which are compromised of fanatical Muslims. However, the one and only image used to display an example of terrorists on the article coincidentally happens to be a non-Muslim group: Basque Fatherland and Liberty: ETA. How pathetically feeble. It is very apparent that Wikipedia is doing its best to be politically correct, as to avoid "offending" certain groups of people. As subtle as these instances of bias are, they make quite an impact with their sheer numbers, combinations, and occurrences. Wikipedialol 22:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

And the one and only image used to display an example of terrorism is the World Trade Center. Who exactly is Wikipedia biased against by not showing a Muslim terrorist group? The Basque ETA?--LutherBifteck 22:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
The attacks on the World Trade Center may or may not be terrorism, after all:
"I believe the photograph of the WTC used in this article invokes doctrined points of view without proof or cause. Although the 9/11 acts can very easily be described as 'Acts Of Terrorism', that is an assumption with no solid references."
Just because something is done in subtle manner, that does not mean it is not biased. Wikipedialol 22:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Again, biased against who?--LutherBifteck 22:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Do you have a image of any terroristic group that is PD or that you are releasing to PD or any other free licence. Feel free to upload it to wikipedia. The A-Queada image that is used on conservapedia is without any information about copyright. So please do not use that one, as it could be illegal just to copy it. --Itsjustme 19:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The term 'Terrorist' is a subjective one. The persons we may consider Terrorists are considered Freedom Fighters by others. This distinction is due to a different point of view. Citing Al Quaeda attacks on civilian targets should be enough to implicate them as a terrorist organization, without explicitly stating it. This is not just the safe route, it's the route that best respects the viewpoints of others. --Charliemc86 17:45, 21 March 2007 (CST) we don't care about respecting the viewpoints of others here. That is what wikipedia is for. This my freind is a glorified blog in wiki clothing. Consider this the safe haven for the radical right. I only wish they owners of this site would stop pretending to be conservative. Godman 20:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Neutral point of view on the Wikipedia bias

Before I point out the views on the bias, I would like to point out that I am neither Liberal nor Conservative. There is some plausible bias in what you point out but sometimes that bias is necessary. Don't forget that you can add details to Wikipedia itself if you find it is missing something. (One more thing - I am a Christian, don't label me)

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

One could add B.C.E. and B.C. both to the timelines. Same with C.E. and A.D. Nevertheless both can be used because there are different point-of-views regarding this.

2. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestianian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[1] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[2] Israel News Agency reports:[3]

No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants".

A article called Palestine and terrorism could be added but there is no real need to. Why? Many of the terrorist organizations are based somewhere else and has no complete connection to the actual country. A mentioning of terrorist bases could be mentioned, however.

3. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[4]

Some people believe different things. They are just pointing out a group of people that think normal math is racist. It is like a group of people who still think the world is flat (They exist).

4. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[5] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[6] But no credible historian makes such a claim.

It is a good idea to point that out, even if they are wrong. Why? It is to show that not all scholars believe Jesus existed. It would be biased in itself not to add that.

5. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

I also think that Christianity should be added as a leading factor but do not forget there were many other factors involved. Inspired by Christianity or not.

6. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[7] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[8] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[9]

One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more Liberals than Conservatives.

7. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12]

Somehow somebody chose to make a connection with some pagan belief. People could try and petition, however, to get Great Flood its own article and have Noah's Ark more based on bible manuscripts and keep all criticisms of that in a separate article.

8. Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[13]

One cannot expect all of America to edit Wikipedia. People from other countries also edit Wikipedia so there is not an entire population editing. It is just coincidence that there are more atheists than Christians. You cannot forget that there are also Christians who do not have the right idea about Christianity.

9. Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[14] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[15]. Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"![16]

There seems to of been some biased users writing this. Sometimes the most controversial articles are not noticed until it is too late. Hopefully somebody will go and make the Neutral-Point-Of-View and No Advertising rules evident in those articles.

10. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[17] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.

There are some bad apples in Wikipedia. If you feel that you are being harassed, contact an administrator. There is the Neutral-Point-Of-View rule, so use that in your defense.

11. Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[18] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

Contact ANOTHER administrator if you would need to. Like I said, there are some bad apples in Wikipedia. I wish there were more people like me on there...

12. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[19] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

Like I said earlier, create a Conservative point of view (In the article itself) and organize it so that there is both the Liberal and the Conservative parts of the story. Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View for anything else.

13. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[20] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

If you feel that that entry has no evidence, mark it with a 'citation needed' mark. This will show that the entry might just be some made-up nonsense. Also use a quote to support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

14. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[21] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

Like I said earlier not everybody is American. Be sure to use the Neutral-Point-Of-View on that.

15. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[22] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

It is used as a formality. It is not anti-American, even though it looks that way. The language for it is not stated American English but rather just English. Remember, America is not the only that edits Wikipedia.

16. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[23] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

You should add that then and be sure to have a reference to back that up.

17. Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in Dover[24] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million),[25] (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[26] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[27]

If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.

18. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

If you feel it is biased, change it but add a reference so people wont think it is vandalism.

19. Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

Use the Neutral-Point-Of-View in your defense. If there is an article about the creationalist theory, add that link as a 'criticisms of the theory of evolution'.

20. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." [28] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers am article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience". [29] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism. [30]

You should then change it to have a dictionary tone, then. I have seen 8-year olds edit Wikipedia and I am sure they might not know how to give an encyclopedic tone, even if the article is beyond their years.

21. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

What page, then? Sometimes people add pages as vandalism, so you have to keep an open mind. If you need to, add the political bias in the criticisms by stating that some think... Do not make it look like it actually is because there are people with different point of views.

22. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[31] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

There is a portal to a Wiki that focuses on actually practical articles. People often use Wikipedia as a reference, though, so it would likely be more appropriate to call it a data base rather than an encyclopedia.

If you are wondering about the remaining responses, it is because I am somewhat running out of energy to do so. There will be more added but until then discuss and try and debunk my neutral point of view. If you feel offended, do not delete. --Eiyuu Kou 14:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

One point I would like to add: About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[10]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[11] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[12] from number 7 Going onto the linked article, I found that the masimum number interviewed mentioned on that article about Americans and religion, was 2306. For a country of your size (~ a few hundred million people), this seems pretty pathetic. Chances are, this research was done in a few select counties in one of the southern states. BINGO! America = Christian fundamentalists through interpretation of dubious statistics.

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