Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive6
Yeah, I just read the article at Wikipedia, and I've not seen anything along the bias that this refers to. The story about the preacher was showing that Johnny was very much a person who took his Christian beliefs very seriously. The date of his death is officially contested and this contention is mentioned in the article. There is nothing that smacks of "bias" as this page indicates. I will take out Johnny Appleseed in 24 hrs if there is no argument. ChairmanMeow 12:44, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia has responded to a number of our examples of bias after we have presented them. That does not mean that we cannot mention past incidents as examples of the general culture and outlook of Wikipedia. DanH 12:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
- Consider updating the reference links in these cases to show the revision of the wikipedia article as it was at the time maybe. Amahony 12:32, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
Again, this isn't bias. If it had been an FA, that would have been one thing, but GA is not quite the same level of recognition. This list is getting more and more ludicrous. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 21:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
- Don't follow you here, Linus the Turbogeek. But can I call on you if I have technical computer questions? :-) A good Easter to you.--Aschlafly 21:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
The list contains still the statement that "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public", which still makes every statistician frown at conservapedia as soon as he looks where we get the data for Wikipedia from. A self-selected sample, with 131 categories, from which respondents can choose as many as they like, is compared to a Harris poll.
The other innovation of this example of Wikipedia bias is the definition of liberal bias; it now even has its own article as Liberal Quotient. This article will make every mathematician frown, and it demonstrates that LQ is highly confusing. The article defines the LQ as Liberals/Conservatives, which has its own problems, but the illustrative part is that the article does not even once uses the definition of LQ correctly. None of the LQs mentioned in the article for particular groups, such as journalists, uses LQ correctly. It was never correct since it was created by Aschlafly. And if you look at the talk page you'll notice that most editors aren't able to apply the definition correctly either.
My suggestions would be 1) get a solid data base, since it it obviously a violation of good practice in statistics. 2) use a definition of liberal bias that people understand, now that it has been demonstrated, that the current definition is poorly understood. Order 9 April, 18:40 (AEST)
- Actually 3/(1/2) is 6. This is the correct part of it. You proabably mean 75%/33%? That is indeed something different and 225%. This just illustrates that the Liberal quotient is plain confusing. Order 11 April, 11:00 (AEST)
The Deluge criticism
As a Christian I can understand the criticism in which the Great Flood is treated as a piece of myth, or if you go to the Great Flood it will take you to the Deluge section: but what you have to realise is that the Great Flood can be seen in nearly all mythologies, for example, Dylan in Welsh and Atlantis in Greek. Therefore, the Noah account is part of wider scope, yet, it can be said that the Great Flood in all cultures could be the account of the same flood that Noah escaped in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James M Hayes (talk)
- James, have you seen Conservapedia's article on the Great Flood? It covers the sorts of things you talk about, without using the word "myth" (or any derivative) at all (except in the external links). Philip J. Rayment 12:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
"Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases." OK, but this page cannot be edited. Isn't that just as bad? Sterile 16:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Nooooo. this is entirely different in a way, I'm unable to explain to you. --Cgday 16:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- A page that has been removed cannot be read, this one can. That's a pretty obvious difference, I would think, and one that I had no difficulty explaining. Philip J. Rayment 22:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- Wasn't Conservapedia's [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] removed as well? Myk 23:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- Hmmm, yes there was such an article that was deleted. But it was removed on the grounds that it was a rant with obscenities. Philip J. Rayment 01:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
- And then deleted and then protected against further re-creation? Myk 01:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
- It was created and deleted twice (with the second version apparently being a copy of the first version), so presumably it was thought prudent to prevent the same thing being done over and over. Philip J. Rayment 01:49, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
- Myk, we allow a great deal of criticism of our site here, far more than Wikipedia allows. I was not involved in the deletion of that particular entry but over time, as this site becomes more stable and secure against vandalism, that page can be reopened just as others have been.--Aschlafly 02:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
- Wikipedia allows unlimited criticism. It contains an article about Conservapedia that includes many of Conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia. It even has a 106-source article entitled "Criticism of Wikipedia" that Wikipedia users wrote themselves. I criticized this article on this talk page, and my comment (along with many others) was deleted. If you aren't a liar, Aschlafly, then you are breathtakingly delusional. It would have been just as easy to remove the obscenities then protect the article.--Mechrobioticon 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- The "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry is a self-serving joke that censors any real criticism. I put in factual statements of bias in the Wikipedia and my factual, respectful statements were distorted and then censored.--Aschlafly 00:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- How many sources does this page cite? It would appear wikipedia is more exhaustive in criticizing themselves than Conservapedia is at criticizing Wikipedia.--Mechrobioticon 00:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- Wow, is that the test you're proposing? Simply count the number of citations, no matter what they say? That does seem consistent with Wikipedia's philosophy. As shown by the content page here, Wikipedia makes a factual claim and then provides a citation that actually fails to support the claim at all.--Aschlafly 01:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Which has sometimes occurred at Conservapedia as well, of course... Dpbsmith 16:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Hasn't that logic been used before on CP? The Theory of Evolution article is touted as being the best because it gets so many hits and has so many citations, but if you took a second to read the talk page you'd see otherwise. I don't know what "factual" statements Andy added, but if they're anything like the bias listed here, of course they were removed since they don't meet the mainstream definition of bias. Jrssr5 16:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm a specialist in analyzing and remedying bias. Please bring any examples to my attention. --Ed Poor 12:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
"Wikipedia is six times as liberal"
Isn't it time to do something about this? Whether or not the numbers are correct isn't for me to say, but if there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the US, but three times as many liberals as conservatives on Wikipedia, then there must be about 2.27 times as many liberals on Wiki as in the US, not 6. The statement as it stands suggests that we don't know basic math, and I for one find that slightly embarrassing. --AKjeldsen 12:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
- Quiet you fool! Don't you realize that if you argue with ASchlafly's math that it means you're wrong about everything? If he says that the Wikipedia is 108% liberal then it must be so!--Rex Mundane 15:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
- You can think about it this way. If your data is correct, then if you were to walk down the street and grab 6 people, statistically you should get 2 liberals and 4 conservatives. At wikipedia, you should get 1.5 conservatives (statistically speaking) and 4.5 liberals. 1.5 times 3 equals 4.5, and 1.5 plus 4.5 equals 6. Divide 4.5 by 2, and you get 2.25. And Hacker's right, "bias" refers to the articles themselves, not to who wrote them. Being mostly composed of liberals is not an example of bias.--Mechrobioticon 00:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Oh, I'm going to be really really really sorry I ever mentioned this, but you can also think of it this way.
- Accept for argument Andrew Schlafly's assumptions—(which I most bodaciously do not accept)—that America is conservative, 2:1 and that Wikipedia is liberal, 3:1. Now, imagine conservatives at Wikipedia encircled by and trying to fight off liberals, and ask: for every pair of conservatives, how many liberals on average must they vanquish in order to prevail? The answer is every pair of conservatives needs to subdue six liberals. Now ask the same question for America. Here, the answer is that every pair of conservatives only needs to dispatch one liberal. Ergo, at Wikipedia the conservatives would need to work six times as hard. QED. Dpbsmith 11:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- I can't read Andy's mind, but I doubt that is how he arrived at his magic number of 6. Creative thinking though!! Jrssr5 16:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I think the critical point that is missing here is that Wikipedia is not an American institution. It is a global one. Thousands of the English articles are not written by Americans. Why else would there be such comprehensive information about cricket? It has no need to represent America, nor should it. Any argument that Wikipedia should reflect America is evidence of severe tunnel vision and likely xenophobia. User:RWest 15:34, 24 July 2007.
Wikipedia is not 6 times more liberal than Conservapedia. The actual number is exactly 2Pi or about 6.28. I thought it might be 6.66, but that would be too much to hope. NPOV 18:03, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in [a] story
What does this have to do with any bias on the part of Wikipedia, and more to the point, in what way is any such bias shown, in this case, liberal? --Olly 05:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Newspapers are known to have a liberal bias also, and hence the copying from the liberal Wikipedia is noteworthy.--Aschlafly 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Um, no. Some newspapers lean left, but there are plenty of newspapers that endorse a conservative position. Quite a few (if not most) of the papers in my area are pretty conservative actually. ColinRtalk 16:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- What does any liberal bias in the written press (LOL) have to do with whether Wikipedia has a liberal bias or not? Number 47 simply is not an example of bias in wikipedia. You may think it's "noteworthy" but so what? It's listed as an example of bias in Wikipedia. I think that counts as deceit.--Olly 09:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Um, no. Some newspapers lean left, but there are plenty of newspapers that endorse a conservative position. Quite a few (if not most) of the papers in my area are pretty conservative actually. ColinRtalk 16:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Newspapers definitely have a liberal bias. I remember The New York Times stating once that a certain celebrity (who shall remain nameless) was pregn*nt. I would have much preferred a picture of the celebrity with a stork superimposed. NPOV 18:06, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
That shouldn't be there, surely, as it is simply someone saying Wikipedia is biased, rather than an actual example of bias. --Protocletos 14:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- It quotes an insightful remark by an authority. That's what good encyclopedias do.--Aschlafly 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- I don't dispute this, but the fact remains that it's not actually an example of bias. --Protocletos 11:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
What the heck…?
I'm sorry about this, and I'll get to work on MediaWiki and stay out of trouble for a while after I have my say, but how is criticism of articles without a worldwide viewpoint a "bias"? Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and yes, America is not the only English-speaking country around, so it can't claim ownership of even the English edition. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 13:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
- I think the criticism means that Wikipedia places an excessive emphasize on the "worldwide viewpoint", often to the exclusion of US views such as conservatism. It's one thing to say what everyone in the world thinks, another to try to homogenize it into one "consensus" view. (See pluralism vs. particularism - or until those are written, multiculturalism.) --Ed Poor 13:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
- Link added. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 14:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules
It saddens me to see that people feel that it is OK to criticize a project that they have not even read most of the rules of. Yes, Wikipedia says that it is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and is NPOV. Of course it is not NPOV yet, but someday could be. Most of these criticisms (well over 70%) are based on ignorance of Wikipedia rules. There are 42 policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and I doubt most people who are writing these criticisms have bothered to read any of those, except for the introduction. And the unbelievable hypocrisy of deleting and protecting a page called [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] is sickening. So yes, if anybody was to go and read the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, they will see that these criticisms are completely unfounded (well, most of 'em). --Hojimachongtalk 14:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
- Hoji, the criticisms are based on the results, and the Wikipedia rules really have very little to do with this. The rules themselves encourage bias (e.g., "NPOV" towards terrorists) or the rules may be applied against conservative edits (e.g., initially against the entry on Conservapedia). And then there are the criticisms about the rules don't say, such as the Wikipedia rules do not prohibit obscenity, gossip, or pretending liberal opinion is fact.
- A study of bias doesn't really care what the rules or cause is. The study is about the results. But thanks for your comments and Lord bless you for your efforts on Wikipedia and here.--Aschlafly 14:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
- And, ignorance is bliss ... it's much easier to blindly criticize something instead of trying to study/investigate the reasons. Jrssr5 15:04, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
- Apparently not easy enough, as some people (including Jimmy Wales himself) still pretend that Wikipedia does not have bias.--Aschlafly 15:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
- Time for my response (sigh); First of all, Jimmy Wales admits that it has a bias; he would be ignorant not to. But it is obvious that articles are much better now than they were a year or two ago. It's clear that great strides have been made towards not having a noticeable bias. And you say criticism is based on results? The stated goals of a project dictate what will be considered "good" and "bad", and most of the criticisms here are empty in their factual backing. Also, the "NPOV" towards terrorists is more neutral than calling them just "terrorists", no? Groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, LTTE, etc. aren't usually referred to as "terrorist", because they are seen as legitimate freedom fighters by huge chunks of the Arabic and Western world.
- Groups like al-Qaeda are still described as terrorist organizations in the introduction, since a larger group of legitimate sources consider them to be terrorists.
- And "pretending liberal opinion is fact"; Liberal opinion is rarely represented as fact, but liberal reports with factual backing is reported with more legitimacy. That's what the WP:RS guideline exists, to make sure reliable sources are used. I think you mean liberal pontification on facts represented as facts; that's what WP:CSB is trying to fix. And may I refer you to look at our very own Theory of evolution article, where there are 14 blockquotes from sources who have very little authority to be talking about evolution. Let us remember that 99.84% of scientists support the evolutionary theory. How are those 14 blockquotes, along with many, many, many AiG references not "conservative opinion is fact"? --Hojimachongtalk 16:23, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
- What study? User:Order May 14.
- Hojimachong, the problem here is that wikipedia only "officially" follows the principles of neutrality , "No original research" and "reliable sources". The reality is that all those "policies" are little more than unenforced facades (since when do left - wing propaganda rags like the New-York times, the Guardian and the rest of them count as non-partisan or reliable?). Wikipedia provides the mechanism by which extremist cabals (mostly of the far-left persuasion) can infest articles related to politics, religion, history and spirituality with a very partisan far-left bent, and they aggressively edit-war (even recruit admins to their revert-gangs and persuade them to abuse their powers in the gangs' favor). While the technical articles on wikipedia may not be so biased (except for the articles on so-called "evolution", which is now a politicized issue), the articles on all the topics I mentioned suffer from a systemic bias hidden between the lines of apparent neutrality. The way I see it, conservapedia takes a different and more honest approach, addressing systemic bias by admitting to it and working within it's constraints. That is far more intellectually honest than the left-wing nutcases on wikipedia. Giskard Reventlov 00:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
There's no need for scare quotes around the Jewish encyclopedia, it just looks like we're either ignorant or accusing Wikipedia of being anti-semitic. The Jewish encyclopedia is a real work, and often cited for things relating to Judaism. link to the Jewish encyclopedia. RDre 12:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
- The quotation is accurate. The quotation marks inform the reader that the term was expressly used by Wikipedia. I don't see how removing the quotes would be more informative or more accurate. Wikipedia is specifically and expressly complaining about its own use of "the Jewish Encyclopedia."--Aschlafly 13:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
You should remove the quote marks. They are not found in the Wikipedia link, and as the earlier poster has already noted, the Jewish Encyclopedia is real. Nor was Wikipedia targeting Judeo-Christian tradition. The passage in question dealt with the wholesale copying of information from works that have entered the public domain--27102340 13:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
- I agree with Hoji. Why is point 1 on this list phrased as if to say that Conservapedia believes the death of 3000 Americans is more important than the deaths of 400,000 Sudanese? Is that really the Conservative perspective?
- In support of RDre and 27102340, how about replacing ...Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia." with the full list 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Nuttall Encyclopaedia, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and other older encyclopedic works? I don't know if the 1911 EB was regarded as a "Christian encyclopedia" at the time, or now. --Scott 08:26, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
- I considered that replacement, but most people don't realize that the Nutall Encyclopedia and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica were Christian encyclopedias.--Aschlafly 14:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Proposed cahnge to #23
Can we change #23 to this
"Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. To remove the problem of ias in censorship in Conservapedia edits to the theory of evolution page aren't allowed in the first place."
Or maybe just delete it?
I think perhaps the article should elaborate more on the Chip Berlet bias thing, particularly since Berlet himself has a wikipedia account, and aggressively edit-wars in tandem with extremist leftist cabals on wikipedia (see his contribs). Giskard Reventlov 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
- Interesting. Please tell me more, perhaps with some examples. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 00:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
- Well there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread (particularly his pet peeves like Dominionism). His primary emphasis on wp seems to be against the LaRouche types, but he frequently whitewashes extremism on the part of the left by mischeviously attributing it to the right. For instance, in New Anti-semitism he blames the leftist antisemitism on some imagined association between the extremist left and the far-right movements in the United States, an assertion that is entirely without foundation (and not a view widely held by numerous advocacy groups combating left wing antisemitism, such as the Stephen Roth center and others). Plus, left-wing antisemitism is a global phenomenon, and it amuses me to think how the prevalence of antisemitism of the Communist Party of India (say) would connect to some Neo-Nazi skinheads.
- I'm sure there are other examples if people dig deep enough. Giskard Reventlov 01:25, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
May I suggest that we globalize our focus just a tad here? The extremist liberal and anti-conservative bias of wikipedia is relevant to the politics of numerous countries in Europe and Asia as well as the United States. admittedly the problems there are less high-profile than the US-related articles, but the liberal bias in many non US-related articles are far more extreme and frequently delves into partisan references, racialist stereotyping and scapegoating, rabid support for Islamism, and other such positions characteristic of the far-left radicals.Giskard Reventlov 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, that is a superb point. I've suspected as much, because often there will be less resistance to the bias in non-US articles. Lord willing, let's expose this bias and please post specific examples here that I can incorporate in the entry. Thanks.--Aschlafly 00:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
- I would say one small thing here. We should "internationalize" our focus, not "globalize" it. The distinction between the two terms is an important one, and I would hope, the importance is self-evident to conservatives. Let me know if I should elaborate. Parrothead 17:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
Wow, what a whinny article. It has almost no truth to it, and most of it is greatly exagerated in the most obscene way. It needs to be rewritten or completely removed in my opinion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrDubya (talk)
- Notice how many people make sweeping criticisms, but don't offer any specific problem that needs fixing? Philip J. Rayment 04:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
All those examples of bias on the content page, and "MrDubya" (what a ridiculous user id.) can't find a single error!--Aschlafly 09:52, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
- TK: Telling MrDubya to shup up was not a very intelligent way to respond to his comment (while not well backed up has some relevance), and was quite unprofessional and rude. Humunculous 11:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
numbers 18, 21, 22, 37
Pardon my questioning, but isn't number 18's claim that "But Wikipedia gives no warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages" incorrect? There is an official Wikipedia content disclaimer which says that the site may contain objectionable content. This is linked to from every page through the general disclaimer.
number 21 doesn't point out that Wikipedia isn't itself implying the idea that Jesus never existed, but rather that other people have implied such an idea. This seems to be evident in the phrasing quoted, and fails to mention that Wikipedia sourced that statement  to show that some people have doubted his existence.
number 22 seems to be outdated, since the current revision when I checked says that "many of the Renaissance's greatest works were devoted to [Christianity]"
number 37 is outdated, wikipedia has about 1.8 million articles now.
I don't mean to criticize, but if this is to be taken seriously, we should probably weed out errors or things which are outdated - otherwise, it might look like a bunch of random people smearing something they don't like, regardless of any weaknesses in Wikipedia which may exist. Aristotle 12:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
- Criticisms are welcome, and I've clarified the entry in response to your points as follows:
- Point 18 is made stronger as the result of your link, which proves that Wikipedia does not warn about specifically images of sexual activities, pornography, or adult content.
- Point 21 is unchanged, as Wikipedia does repeat an absurd claim of Jesus deniers. Would Wikipedia do likewise in a serious entry about the Holocaust, and give credibility to claims of Holocaust deniers? I hope not.
- Point 22 is updated to reflect Wikipedia's backhanded reference to Christianity in its Renaissance entry.
- Point 27, 1.5 was changed to 1.8. This does not alter the point here.
- Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:11, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia now mentions that Johnson credited his victory to God. They have a footnoted source for it, too. -Masterbratac 20:48, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
- But Johnson credited Christ. The liberals controlling Wikipedia apparently don't want to admit that.--Aschlafly 19:24, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
D. James Kennedy
Recently added to his Wiki article (here) is the information that he is a "supporter of intelligent design." This information was added based upon nothing more than:
- 1. An unbacked statement made by a far-left professor in an interview for the far-left Americans United for the Separation of Church and State ,
- 2. A repeat of said professor's claim in a far-left book about Republicans alleged "war on science" ,
- 3. The simple fact that he wrote the foreword for a book about design - no indication was given as to what either he or the book actually says,
- 4. A complete misrepresentation of Kennedy's sermons and TV show's special segments , and
- 5. Citing that his church's website sells materials on ID - a whopping total of four items (which is misrepresented as "a broad range" on Wiki), two of which are the same item in DVD and VHS  - while completely ignoring the many, many other items about Creation(ism) they sell .
That's it. That's the justification for claiming Kennedy is a supporter of ID. Ah, but if you can't prove a negative (a logical fallacy to start with) and provide a reference that states "Kennedy is not a supporter of Intelligent Design," then you have no basis for removing the false information from Wikipedia.
Admittedly, Kennedy agrees with IDers that the universe and life look designed, but his and their conclusions based upon that are completely different. Kennedy is a Bible-based. dyed-in-the-wool, 6-literal-days, 6000-year-old-Earth, life-created-as-is Creationist who points out that even though he and IDers agree about design, IDers are not Creationists. Why, if you were a supporter of ID, would you point out that IDers are not Creationists? This is the discernment that liberal Wiki editors who are enslaved to the rule of Wiki law lack (or force themselves to ignore).
And in the spirit of full disclosure, that addition to Kennedy's article is what drove me to leave Wikipedia. I argued against it (quite well, if I may be so bold) and got ganged up on by at least three liberal editors who used their combined efforts to "game the system" and dodge Wiki's "3 reverts rule." I watched my edits so as not to run afoul of the 3RR, but was still found in violation of it despite not having more than three reverts in 24 hours because I was watching my edits! (Someone explain that one to me.) Jinxmchue 00:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
- I'll add this to the next update the Bias in Wikipedia list, probably tomorrow. Your comments here are right on target. I just returned from a conference where a leading ID scientist drew the same distinctions that you have. The liberals at Wikipedia no longer surprise me in their bias and unwillingness to accept basic logic. Welcome to Conservapedia, where logic is respected.--Aschlafly 00:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
A cross-dressing man who has not undergone conventional hormone therapy and has not had sex change surgery is referred to as "she/her" on Wikipedia because he "identifies as a woman." I confronted this liberal nonsense here with no liberals being able to successfully counter my arguments. Still, the article has been continually reverted to the version with female pronouns. Jinxmchue 00:41, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
Outdated "Missing Facts" articles
It seems that most of the things on this list are merely complaints about what used to be missing from Wikipedia articles. The point of user-generated project like Wikipedia, after all, is that when a mistake or an omission is noticed (say, the lack of commentary on indentured servitude in the Bacon's Rebellion article), the person who noted it can fix the omission.
For example: There is no page on Conservopedia for the Armenian Genocide or Premillennialism, and the Giuseppe Garibaldi article is twenty words long. But nobody would jump to the conclusion that, because no one had expanded on the article, Conservapedia thinks that Garibaldi is historically unimportant.
Similarly: there are many statements of "bias" which are due to unnoticed vandalism, vandalism which was removed as soon as it was found. One can complain that Wikipedia needs more oversight, but there is a real difference between having idiots put up lies which simply went unnoticed, and a concerted effort to disseminate them. (It's also unclear to me how the "Liberal Agenda" is helped along by attacking Fuzzy Zoeller. Or by having lots of articles about Moby. But I digress)Nedlum 12:17, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- No, you misstate how Wikipedia works. Admins with special authority at Wikipedia review every edit and revert vandalism quickly. The instances cited here were approved by the Wikipedia authorities.
- None of the instances cited here are mere oversights, or random vandalism. They are examples of the bias in Wikipedia editors and admins in presenting factual claims to the public. Just look at how long the cited bias existed before someone heard about Conservapedia's criticism and then made a change in response to criticism here.
- Wikipedia allows and even encourages gossip, which we prohibit here. Wikipedia's use of gossip on Wikipedia does have a liberal bias, as numerous examples in this list illustrate.--Aschlafly 13:12, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- Hoji, none of the examples in this list are vandalism. I don't think Wikipedia blocked any editor for these edits and typically multiple admins and editors saw and allowed these edits over an extended period of time. In the first example (Human Life International), the edit was by an IP address (unregistered user) to a controversial entry. That edit sticks out like a sore thumb even among a list of hundreds of recent edits. Yet it was allowed and I don't think the IP address has even been blocked for it.
- If a Wikipedia admin speaking for Wikipedia says that one of these examples was vandalism and corrective action was taken (e.g., blocking the person responsible, posting an alert of some kind, locking the page, etc.), then I'll note that accordingly here. But that hasn't happened. More examples will be posted today. Lord willing, Wikipedia will do something to stop the injustice eventually.--Aschlafly 13:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
I have to take issue with the statement about Jerry Costello. The exact quote from Wikipedia, as of July 8: "He has a pro-life voting record and has received favorable ratings from the American Conservative Union and the John Birch Society." They are merely stating the facts, no? Did they say he was a member of the JBS? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 14:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- It may also be a fact that the American Communist Party endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004. Should that be in Kerry's entry? Of course not. Inserting that into his entry would only be designed to smear him. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 15:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- I agree. There's really no reason for Wikipedia to mention it, especially in a very short article. It could only be designed to make him look bad. Also, did the communists endorse John Kerry? Just wondering. SPierce 16:35, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- For the curious, the answer to your question could be provided in the entry on the American Communist Party, not the entry on John Kerry. But I doubt Wikipedia would smear Kerry like that anyway. The injustice is the campaign at Wikipedia to smear conservatives, and vulnerable people. Wikipedia is a bully, an unrestrained mob. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:44, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Call me dense, but I just read the CP article on the John Birch Society, and I don't see how it's a smear to associate someone with them (whether warrented or not). Anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-UN, pro-Constitution, pro Founding Fathers... it might be a little libertarian for some CP users, but not a smear. So could someone elighten this poor soul? :) Jazzman831 16:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- I won't call you dense, but the point is not whether a highly informed and fair-minded reader would be affected by this smear, but whether an uninformed reader might be. Obviously the intent behind Wikipedia's guilt-by-association is to smear the victims in the eyes of the general public. Obviously the Wikipedia's false claims of association with JBS are designed to smear the victims with guilt-by-association.--Aschlafly 18:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- That's just it though; I am in uninformed, and I don't get how this is a smear. If Costello didn't actually get their support then sure, it's an untruth. I just don't understand how calling a conservative a libertarian is a smear, unless there's some sinister side to this organization which both CP and WP left out. Jazzman831 18:47, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- Have you read the Wikipedia entry about the John Birch Society? It says that the "Society had been marginalized within the conservative movement since the 1960s." Read on, as the Wikipedia entry gets much worse. And then Wikipedia smears Costello, who has absolutely no connection with the organization, with the appearance of being connected with it. Wikipedia's insertion of JBS into Costello's entry is obviously designed to smear Costello. If you want to continue to deny it, then go ahead, but you would only lose credibility by doing so.--Aschlafly 21:04, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- I agree that Wikipedia's smear of Costello is not a lie. But it is still an unjustified smear. Ditto for Wikipedia's smear of Fred Schwarz. The objection to the use of guilt-by-association is not that it is a lie, but that it is an unjustified smear.
- The Wikipedia smears of Dave Dravecky and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are baseless and also out-of-date. Repetition of defamation is no better than the original defamation.--Aschlafly 22:54, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
I know this is pointless, because it's just gonna be burried.... but simple math will tell you that 99.84% of 50000 would be 49,200 People, leaving room for 800 dissenters.... Therefore, the 700 that support still leaves another 100... Now, it's probably true that more than 100 scientists beleive in evolution, but you can't claim bias off of guesswork SirJim 18:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- Don't follow your argument here. Obviously when several hundred people sign a paper, that does not imply that millions who didn't sign it somehow disagree and are on the other side. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:33, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- No, it doesn't, but it doesn't imply that they are for it either. It simply states that they either have no opinion (doubtful) for that they choose not to enter debate. When using statistics as reasoning for an argument, you can't assume a positive or negative from data that isn't there. SirJim 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- No, failure to sign a petition does NOT imply a lack of opinion. It simply means the person did not sign the petition. The reason could be anything from too busy to "agree but don't want my name on a petition." Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- That's exactly what I said... either no opinion (doubtful) or choose not to enter the debate... However, as I said, statistics are effective in debate only when they're used exactly as reported. Therefore, according to the available data, Wikipedia is correct. Obviously, common sense tells that there are more scientists who support creationism, but only the available data can be used to make a logical point SirJim 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
- For the record, 98.4% of 50,000 is 49,200. 99.84% of 50,000 is 49,920 leaving just 80 dissenters. Hope this helps. Learn together 03:25, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Again, this will be ignored, but I looked at the Zach Johnson page, and found that it only contains one quote from him (about his getting better). However, if you look at TIger Wood's page, which is about 2 or 3 times as long, it doesn't contain any full quotes and only one "half quote" about the desert golf course. Furthermore, none of the master's pages have any quotes from winners or other placers SirJim 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- What's your point? Zach Johnson won the upset of the year, if not the decade, which he expressly attributed it to his faith in Christ. Of course that should not be censored.--Aschlafly 21:31, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
- My point is that no censorship exists.... None of the golfers have personal quotes on the masters pages, and most golfers don't even have quotes on their own pages.... On top of that, I see no past version of the page where his religious quotes were included but removed.... If you think there's a problem with the page, at least try editing it before coming over here and screaming bias... Just put the quotes in and get a reason for the deletion (if it occurs) Then you have a legit case for censorship.... As it stands, I see none SirJim 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Sections for criticisms/controversies more often in articles for right-wing organizations than in left-wing
One can pick any of the well-known conservative groups from this Wiki category list and more often than not, you will find sections for criticism and controversies. Do the same for well-known liberal groups, such as "gay rights" groups on this list (since Wiki doesn't have a "Liberal organizations of the United States" cat), and you'll find it difficult to find any sections for criticisms and controversies. Additionally, if you do find these sections on articles for liberal groups, they are much, much smaller than what you typically find for conservative groups. More examples of this bias can be found using this mixed category list of political organizations. Jinxmchue 13:17, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Take a step back
I'm not trying to hide anything here: I'm from Wikipedia, and I don't like what you guys do here. If this is largely ignored, I won't be suprised or offended, but I have a question...
If Wikipedia is so biased, why run away from it, leaving it the way it is, to create your own version? Wouldn't it be infinitely more productive to help in the pursuit of a free encyclopedia by fixing the problems you see instead of seceding and forming your own faction?
Essentially, you see Wikipedia as full of liberals and have two choices:
1. Fix the bias you see;
2. Leave Wikipedia flawed and create your own flawed encyclopedia.
I mean, pages on Wikipedia are vandalized all the time with offensive, pointless, or unwanted material, and when people like me see it, we remove it and move on. We don't hole up elsewhere and complain about it. Reading some of these accusations of bias, I think to myself: why not fix it? I'm sorry liberal politicians have so little criticism; go find some! I'm sorry we ignored Johnny Appleseed's Christian whatever, add it!
It's not our fault that more volunteers are liberal in Wikipedia. Instead of stepping away, why not keep us balanced? We can work together; we can resolve our differences. If you want to talk, I'll check here. - Boss1000 21:30, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
- The above is an insult to our intelligence, Boss Man.
- In point of fact, every time we dare add the sort of edit you call upon us to add, people like your allies on Wikipedia take it down. As the histories will show, Boss Man, if you care to look.
- And in other point of fact, Wikipedia has on it a number of entries that Conservapedia would never permit--entries, for example, on certain intimate practices that ought to disgust you or strike terror in your heart. I'd like to take those down--but I'd like to know how you or any of a thousand Wikipedia editors I could name would feel about that, mate.
- So don't talk here about Wikipedia being open to criticism!
- And while I'm on the subject, I'll thank you not to make any more of your complex claims. You see us as flawed? By what standard? As far as I'm concerned, your flaw is our standard of excellence.--TerryHTalk 22:00, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Very well put, TerryH. I might add that many Wikipedia defenders will hide behind "vandalism" to explain its liberal bias. But the 50+ examples of bias are not vandalism.
Wikipedia is a smear factory, a high-tech lynch mob. In addition to destroying people with smears and lies, Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children. Wikipedia boosts its traffic for its for-profit search engine by promoting gossip and obscenity. It is worse than the National Enquirer. No thanks, I don't want anything to do with it now.--Aschlafly 22:49, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
- Adding my own two bob's worth, when Wikipedia's Intelligent_design article was proposed for Featured Article status (or something like that), I opposed on the grounds of the bias in the article. Not only was my opposition rejected, as I expected, but there were threats to delete my comments as being trolling! Yet many people over the previous months had complained of bias in the article, and they were always slapped down, and in some cases banned. I even had another Wikipedian, a scientist, e-mail me and say that he disagreed with pretty well everything I stood for (regarding religion, evolution, etc.), yet he agreed with me that the article was biased, but that he had given up trying to fight the bloc of anti-ID people protecting the article. That's just one example of several that I could quote. Philip J. Rayment 23:36, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Adding to Aschflays useless comments which are unsubstantiated, why do you feel you need to change everything by creating a new deeply flawed with hundreds of thousands of grammer mistakes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denzo (talk)
- I invite you to rewrite your comment in a less abusive manner and without the spelling and syntax mistakes of that sentence, let alone the unsubstantiated charges. Philip J. Rayment 05:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
My apologies, but what did I do wrong exactly? I'm dyslexic and to be honest I think a very good job of reaching a good level of grammer despite my limitations.
Also, speaking of 'Liberal bias' I am after seeing the Che Guevara article that he is a Liberal activist! There is such a thing of 'factual bias' trying to make something to suit your argument. Anyone with half a brain will recognise Che wasn't a Liberal. He was a socialist with close ties with the Chinese regime. This is but one example of the complete hypocrysy of this site and the entire ideology you represent. Denzo 06:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
- Taking your last point first, admittedly I don't have half a brain (mine is complete), but I wouldn't recognise that he wasn't a liberal, simply because I know next to nothing about him.
- But on to (slightly) more substantial points, the errors in your previous message are as follow (I've listed them all, but normally wouldn't mention most of these if they were the only error). I also accept that dyslexia may account for at least some of these:
- "Aschflays" (a user name) is correctly spelt "ASchlafly" (I admit that I still have to look that one up most of the time).
- "grammer" is correctly spelt "grammar".
- "Aschflays useless comments" is being abusive; you could have written that more politely.
- "...creating a deeply flawed with hundreds..." A deeply-flawed what? You've forgotten the noun that the adjectival phrase is supposed to be modifying.
- What does "everything" refer to in "change everything"? I might ask about the evidence for the "hundreds of thousands of grammer mistakes", but I guess first I'd like to know what it is that you omitted that is supposed to have all these mistakes.
- Philip J. Rayment 06:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Fair enough, its a bit rich when I go on about grammar mistakes. That taken into account, my original point still stands, pedantary aside. Denzo 07:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
- You still haven't explained what is "deeply flawed". Philip J. Rayment 07:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children
Having spent a lot of time on wiki, and having looked up the reproductive articles, there is no pornography. Unless you consider educational diagrams pornography.
Oh right, you guys probably want to change science class because it refers to reproductive organs! I forgot! Denzo 08:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
- Denzo, answer me this: Since when do articles explaining in detail, with photographs, how ostensible adults (and, perhaps, teen-agers) can play "adult" kidnap games, qualify as "educational diagrams," or a fit subject for "science class"? Not to mention that the articles in question are lifted straight out of another Wiki that is devoted to that sort of sick, perverted game, and to teaching its readers how to play it!
- We weren't talking about the reproductive articles--but we do observe that the very subject of human reproductive science has of late been the subject of vandalism, with a view to the introduction of pornography. We also observe that education in that area is subject to frightful abuse, and therefore deem it best handled in the home, from parent to child.
- If you have a problem with that, then I suggest that you find another wiki--or establish one, since after all the MediaWiki software is free software and as such available free of charge.--TerryHTalk 08:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
You don't seem to mind it when they teach about plants reproductive organs. Not human ones though, its better to be ignorant than informed after all. Either we agree with educating children or we don't. Denzo 08:23, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
- Denzo, you still didn't explain what is "deeply flawed". Are you referring to Conservapedia itself? Philip J. Rayment 08:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes. You cannot cancel a wrong and hope to make a right when you yourself go about it a wrong way. The aim is to make this place somewhere with a conservative bias. Would you prefer your children read something with any bias? I know I'd want my children to read the facts, and then make up their mind. Other people have deliberately placed bias for children to read - either it be the protocols of the learned elders of zion in Saudi Arabia or Hitlers textbooks downgrading the Jews to mere mathematical aliens. Do you realise you share a precedent with some of the most horrible regimes of the modern era? Denzo 08:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, I would expect my children to read something with a bias, because a bias is unavoidable in many cases. But that doesn't prevent them reading the facts. You seem to think that facts and bias are mutually exclusive, but this is not necessarily so. In many cases it is impossible to present all the facts (they might even be infinite), and just the selection of which facts are presented is subject to bias. I have said before elsewhere that we have a bias towards accuracy and fairness. Do you think we should have that bias, or not? Philip J. Rayment 09:20, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
I think you shouldn't. Take the homosexuality for starters. We need to decide what logic we use - the Scientific method or your pretty logic that allows you to discriminate when you feel like it - If its the former then you simply cannot, simply cannot even begin to comprehend how stupid it is to have homosexuality denounced on religious grounds.
I would rather my child read the facts about homosexuality - why people do it and what it is - rather than they read about the Bible's view. I don't care what the Bible's view and neither do the majority of the world. There are other examples, but the main reasons I decided to leave here:
- A constant unwarranted attack on the Democrats, which besides your name makes you out to be partisans.
- Che Guevara being termed as 'Liberal', I genuinly wonder if any of you know the differences between Liberalism and socialism.
- The poor quality of a lot of the articles, like Sparta
- The unbelievably humourous, yet worrying level of bias on this site, which infinitely outdo's any accidental bias wiki may or may not engage in. Denzo 09:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
- You don't agree that we should have a bias towards accuracy and fairness? Where do you think our bias should be then? To inaccuracy and unfairness?
- Okay, let's take homosexuality. Logic is logic; there's not such thing as "scientific logic" and "petty logic". And I don't discriminate "when I feel like it". And I don't denounce homosexuality on religious grounds. I denounce it on the grounds that the Creator of us designed us to be heterosexual. I consider that to be a fact. Do you have hard, factual, evidence that I'm wrong? I'd like to see it, rather than you simply dismiss it by labelling it as "religious".
- I would also rather my children read the facts about homosexuality, but what makes you think that what the Bible says is not factual? The fact that you don't care what the Bible says is you showing your bias, not an argument from logic or science.
- Philip J. Rayment 10:25, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
That makes no sense! You can believe that some giant cookie monster created the world in seven days, just don't enforce that crap on us! There is two different kinds of reasoning - there is no evidence to support your creation theory, so I will not teach my children that. The Bible was written by ancient Kings and propagandists - I would teach them that to widen their minds and inform them of the background, rather than teach them your 'literal' truths.
You DONT HAVE A BIAS TOWARDS ACCURACY AND FAIRNESS! You clearly don't! YOUR NAME IS CONSERVAPEDIA!
This is the kinda crap I'm talking about. Denzo 04:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
- What makes no sense? And I don't believe in a "giant cookie monster" (actually, I don't believe in cookies; we have biscuits here in Oz :-) ). And I'm not forcing anything on you, am I? I'm expressing my view, just as you are. And just because you don't know of any evidence to support creation does not mean that there is none. I know of plenty. What evidence do you have that the Bible was written by ancient kings (apart from some some of the poetic books)? Is your belief on those things 'literal' truth?
- I asked if you agreed that we should have a bias towards accuracy and fairness. You claimed that we don't have that, but that doesn't actually answer the question. Please answer the question. And while you're at it, stop shouting, it's not nice.
- Philip J. Rayment 11:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)