Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive8

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


The following have been corrected at Wikipedia

Thank God! At least that's a few less instances of bias and slander Wikipeda will try to pass off as truth. On the other hand, I suppose it's only fair to now remove them from the list...

  • 1) "Deceit" now redirects to lie.
  • 3) Fred Schwarz and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. Dave Dravecky's article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...
  • 4) The mention of JBS in Jerry Costello's article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.
  • 13) A quote from Zach Johnson to this effect has been added.
  • 15) The John Birch Society article no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".
  • 23) The Conservapedia article no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.
  • 24) Operation Eagle Claw mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.

Evidently examples 5, 6, 7, and 10 have been corrected some time ago, but I suppose they should be kept for posterity's sake?

Also, for example 8 and 16... it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia has an anti-intellectual slant and no respect for experts (a 14-year-old dropout has as much weight on a subject, if not more, than an actual professional or researcher in the domain). But does that really constitute "bias" per se, according to Conservapedia's definition? I just wasn't quite clear on that...

Hopefully keeping up the pressure will force Wikipedia to correct the rest of these errors - or even better, convince people to come to Conservapedia instead.

Feebasfactor 20:39, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

I'll start at your beginning and if your claims of correction don't hold true for the first few, then I'm going to stop wasting time on your list:
  • 1) "Deceit" now redirects to lie.
Deceit does not have the same meaning as lie. That redirect is improper, misleading, and illustrates the merit of the complaint.
The JBS reference in the Fred Schwarz has been removed, but the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons still has the JBS reference. Your statement to the contrary is false.
  • 4) The mention of JBS in Jerry Costello's article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.
The association is not justified. It's plainly an improper attempt at guilt-by-association.
  • 13) A quote from Zach Johnson to this effect has been added.
The Zach Johnson entry does finally admit that he credited Jesus Christ, but the liberals on Wikipedia insert a "citation needed" to try to discredit Johnson's quote. The effect remains similar to before.
The John Birch Society entry does continue to smear unrelated people.
  • 23) The Conservapedia article no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.
I didn't bother rechecking this, but why is Jimmy Wales given preferential treatment in an entry about Conservapedia? He has no connection with Conservapedia, and it's unclear he's even spent any time on this site.
  • 24) Operation Eagle Claw mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.
The rewording continues to obscure the timing of Operation Eagle Claw during unpopular Carter's difficult primary battle with Ted Kennedy for the Democratic nomination. The new explanation seems determined to confuse the political implications of the operation as the old explanation did.
I stopped at this point, and see no need to change the examples of bias on the above points. The changes often did not occur as stated, and where changes did occur they merely underscore the bias further. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)--Aschlafly 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
I apologize then... particularly for the JBS reference in the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons article, I don't know how I missed that one. As for the "deceit" example, I thought deceit and lie might be essentially synonymous, hence Conservapedia not needing an article on "lie"... but you're right, claiming they are one and the same is misleading. Sorry, I genuinely thought these might constitute valid corrections.
Feebasfactor 22:02, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Planning to add a few new examples

It's about time to add a few new examples to the list here. Please make suggestions here. A point about the new attorney, apparently liberal, who has taken the helm is appropriate, and his callous attitude towards the smears and gossips (while editing his own entry). Another point about the anti-Christian entries is needed. An update about how the leadership of Wikipedia is trying to cash in on the traffic with their for-profit search engine may be appropriate. Other suggestions? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

I was just about to point out link 14 above after noticing it as a major headline on a news site. The fact that US government computers have been caught editing Wikipedia articles on subjects relevant to their work (i.e. Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay) implies that they are using Wikipedia as a government propaganda tool. DanH 15:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

And don't forget that the Dem HQ, the New York Times were also caught. SkipJohnson 16:36, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
The New York Times example is excellent. Do you have a link to prove that? Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual tool that is being used to find the anonymous edits by various companies and governments is . It is probably more useful to link the tool, allowing people to do their own research on who did what rather than linking to a secondary source. --Rutm 17:13, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Here is an example of a NYT edit: [2] [3] SPierce 00:02, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

SPierce, that IP traces to Norfolk, VA. DanH 02:19, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

IP location traces are not always as accurate as going in the other direction. Useing wikiscanner is better. New York Times edits: [4] [5], [6] [7] . ACLU: [8]. Amnesty International: [9] [10]. Reuters: [11]. SkipJohnson 10:59, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
Skip, I look at two of your examples and they consist of shockingly obscene edits to the entries. How do we know that IP addresses at the institutions like the NYT and ACLU were really responsible?--Aschlafly 11:22, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
A WHOIS search checks out the IP addresses, but it doesn't check out the users of the IP address (there simply is no way to know who is physically at the keyboard). The NYTimes edits are exceedingly juvenile, as are the ACLU and Reuters edits (plus they don't benefit the respective organization -- they are just run of the mill vandalism). It's much more likely that someone had their kid in on visiting day and let them use their computer. The Amnesty International edit, however, is definitely someone from AI, or at least someone intimately involved with them. I checked some other edits they made, and almost all involved AI, whether on AI's main page or on other pages across the site. I highly doubt, however, that these edits were approved by AI, but there is no evidence to the contrary. Jazzman831 11:34, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
Please realize that the obscene edits are in no way limited to organizations with a liberal bend. For example [12] from the Republican party of MN offices[13]. Also realize that these edits in no way suggest a bias in Wikipedia any more than vandalism on Conservapedia suggests that it has a bias of some sort. --Rutm 12:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
So the Republican Party has been infiltrated by subversives; we already know that. Rob Smith 13:12, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
Even I'm amazed that computers from the New York Times were used to insert crude vandalism in Wikipedia. Are we sure about this? Let's be sure before we post this on the main page and in the content page here.--Aschlafly 13:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
Yes. The NYT acknowledged this in their own article about this. Since we've put this on the front page, we should list it here as well. SkipJohnson 11:01, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

this is probably too obvious to mention but

WP has an article for "evolution". We have one for "Theory of evolution." I think that says it all? SPierce 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree :-) --Ymmotrojam 03:07, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
As do I. Good catch! Jinxmchue 22:38, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Double brackets needed on John Seigenthaler

We now have an article on John Seigenthaler. The mentions of his name in this list should link to it. SkipJohnson 12:15, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Done. Thanks much.--Aschlafly 13:21, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

GLBTs are the only group of people in which "self-identity" determines the content of their articles

Midge Potts is a man (no surgery or proven hormone therapy) who "self-identifies" as a woman. Wikipedia's Manual of Style states this about identity:

Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves.

This means that since Midge calls himself a woman, only female pronouns may be used in the article. The fact that he is still physically a man is irrelevant. When it comes to GLBTs, a person's personal opinion of their "self-identity" trumps facts on a site that claims to be encyclopedic.

And it is only GLBTs to whom this rule applies. No white person can "self-identify" as black and have their articles state that they are black. No nutcase like David Koresh or Charles Manson can "self-identify" as Jesus Christ and have their articles state that they actually are Jesus. Only GLBTs can have this done to their articles. Capriciousness trumps facts. Exactly how is that either encyclopedic or unbiased? It's not. If Midge Potts were to die today, a coroner (a scientist!) examining his body would not give a rip about his "self-identity." Midge would go down on paper as being a man. Period. Jinxmchue 22:37, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

The patients rule the liberal insane asylum at Wikipedia. :) Conservative 22:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
The arguments being made seem to bear that out. I've never seen such twisted logic. Jinxmchue 23:43, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
Actually, this "self-identity" thing isn't even an official Wikipedia rule. It's a "non-binding guideline." Very, very weak. Jinxmchue 12:48, 6 September 2007 (EDT)


What rational person can believe that WP is "heavily promoting" suicide? In fact, the opening paragraphs of the main entry are rather like CP in that they define suicide and describe the views of suicide held by Christians and members of other religions. And how many times does the word suicide occur in CP? It would be interesting to match that figure per pages with that of WP. Pachyderm 11:46, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Also, the Henry Friendly article has been changed. But in a biographical article is is scarcely "heavily promoting" suicide to mention that the subjevt took his/her own life. I ask you! Pachyderm 11:50, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Double brackets needed

On John Birch Society and Jerry Costello. SkipJohnson 10:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has a redirect from "deceit" to lie.

Wikipedia has a redirect from "deceit" to lie. Also, the Wikipedia entry is actually "Deceit (album)" . Please do not put this in our encyclopedia again. Conservative 16:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Now hold on a minute, Conservative. Wikipedia did briefly redirect the word "deceit" to "Conservapedia." True enough, someone changed that back to "lie." But, seeing that a redirect to "Conservapedia" is of a piece with the other examples we have seen, one must ask: was the reversion a matter of policy, or was it a cover-up of an embarrassing edit by an overzealous editor?--TerryHTalk 16:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
We have vandals with an agenda too. Why should we not expect the same at Wikipedia. I don't think you have shown that the redirect from Deceit to conservapedia wasn't vandalism. More importantly, the Wikipedia entry is actually "Deceit (album)" . Please let's be precise and not engage in "feel goodism" in regards to Wikipedia. There is a ton of liberal bias at Wikipedia and we don't have to have poorly supported strawmen to show it. Conservative 16:33, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

I believe I just found some incriminating material in regards to liberal bias and Wikipedia

I think we need to put the more hard hitting material first in the article by reexamining the various examples we gave. With that in mind, I believe I just found some very incriminating material in regards to liberal bias and Wikipedia which I will start posting in a user workspace that I will create.

I also think we should removed some uncited material until it is ready to be cited.

Lastly, hopefully, the whole "deceit(album)" controversy can be resolved and we can move on.

Conservative 18:37, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

  • I think you are paying too much attention to the emails you receive from known (but evidently not known to you) vandals, and too easily swayed by those who seek to discredit you, by counting on your predictable reactions. The material will stand, and I advise everyone to stop removing material unless invited to do so. I hope this warning is very clear as to its meaning, and that this line of posting is finished here. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:54, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
TK, I received no email in regards to the material I deleted. I just know the material is not sufficiently cited or supported. Now some of the material I deleted may be subsequently supported via reputable citations. However, until they are I think they should be removed as a Conservapedia commandment states that everything must be true and verifiable. Do reputable news reporters have a habit of stating serious and unsupported statements and then a week or so later give the evidence? No they do not. And neither should we and the Consevapedia commandments reflects this. I think it is fair to say that I have championed true and verifiable policy at Conservapedia in the past through various efforts and I received valuable help from others in this regard so it would be a mistake to say I have been alone in this respect. Obviously, this is because I know the policy of true and verifiable is important. Yesterday, someone added a completely fictious large article at Conservapedia. It was completely uncited. Obviously, if we do not take the sourcing policy seriously a lot of bogus material will creep into Conservapedia. Now I realize that everyone make mistakes. For example, the greatest heroes of many conservatives - namely biblical heroes - are stated to have made several mistakes. However, I think it is important to be amenable to fixing our mistakes in regards to the consevapedia commandments and other matters. Lastly, I do think that I could have communicated privately at first given the high profile nature of the article in question and some of my pointed remarks. Conservative 19:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)


"Wikipedia claims about 1.8 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".[80] 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.

I quite agree about the music. It should be deleted. I suggest the following articles be eliminated: Beethoven, Brahms, Vivaldi, Bach, The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Muddy Waters, Chopin, Louie Armstrong, Gershwin, Liszt, The Rolling Stones, Haydn, and all the rest. Sutrebla 12:11, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh right. Beethoven, Moby and thousands of obscure and vulgar rap artists are all about the same in significance. Wiki-logic at work! Hey, this wasn't a waste in responding after all. We discovered a new term: Wikilogic. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:23, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. They aren't the same, but where's the line? The Beatles did drugs, slept no doubt with many women, talked about "doing IT in the road" in a song, and so on, but I can't imagine any reasonable encyclopedia excluding them as unimportant can you? Where's the line? Tchaikovsky was in love with his nephew I think, should he be excluded? Should this be mentioned in a article? Where's the line? Who decides on where the line is? Thanks for responding. Sutrebla 12:37, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Sutrebla, without the Mobocracy here, the decisions are made by Administrators, applying that good old idea of common sense! Like Aschlafly said, Moby is one one thing. Another thousand one-hit-wonders is another. Surely you can see that? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 13:13, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for being kind. Aschlafly seems to want to scare away people. Anyway, I can't say I know much about "Moby", so I'm not sure what you mean by "Mobocracy" or what Aschlafly means by "Wikilogic" for that matter. I guess a lot of one hit wonder bands would be a waste, but I still don't see where the line is drawn vis-a-vis vulgarity or relevance or whatever. I am dissatisfied with Wikipedia, and thought this might be an alternative that could actually work. Still, if the administrators decide where the line is, then almost anything I write could just be overridden, same as Wikipedia. I happen to think that Tchaikovsky being in love with his nephew (if I have that right) is pretty bad, but that doesn't mean the music is bad does it? Suppose Michael Jackson was in jail right now for pedophilia, would that mean he doesn't exist anymore? If a band had one record which was profane, would they be denied an entry here? My Dad used to say that "common sense" is not very common. Would the "common sense" of one administrator be the same as the "common sense" of another? Confused. Sutrebla 15:14, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
  • If you think Aschlafly was being scary, or you worry about what common sense is, you perhaps worry about what the meaning of the word "is" is! Nothing is worth all that angst! In a family-friendly encyclopedia, how is some supposed attraction to his nephew relevant to an article about a famous composer? Does it add knowledge as to his compositions? No. That is what I mean by common sense. If we had an article about Nas, would it be family friendly to include his lyrics, and links to his profane website? No. Is it common sense to spend all this time discussing hypothetical scenarios? No! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
  • I appreciate your response. Where is the line? Thanks. Sutrebla 15:38, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
    • more Wikilogic which is actually just plain old logic that the sites rulers happen to disagree with. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and thus can afford the luxury of including a great many pop culture references be they good bad or indifferent. A fair comparison would be to look at X number of topics and compare the coverage or lack there of between this site and WP. Hint: this site loses. JackNoc 15:56, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
  • BTW, I don't actually worry about the meaning of the word "is" 8-) Sutrebla 16:05, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Sutrebla, a "line" is not necessary to justify different treatment. I realize that Mindless Equality is a characteristic of liberal style, but you've taken it to absurd extreme. How about complaining to your local library because it does accept worthless book and let us know how they respond.--Aschlafly 17:13, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
I must admit it's pretty tough to be labeled so quickly around here, just like Wikipedia. Family friendly may mean no profanity, but it certainly means you're gonna be called a liberal if you disagree with anyone! LOL. I guess I deserved the "Oh, right" after my initial entry, it was a bit sneering, but after that, I was also "worrying about what common sense is", don't know the meaning of the word "is" (ouch, now I'm Clinton!), angst ridden, unduly hypothetical, using Wikilogic (still don't get that one since I thought Conservapedia was based on Wiki technology), mindless, (double ouch), and worst of all, I am using characteristic liberal style. Well, I'm not a liberal, and AM dissatisfied with Wikipedia, and hoping to find something else. If you want to keep heaping on the labels, well, I guess conservapedia is not for me. As far as the music goes, my point was how are things determined to be unsuitable? If Wikipedia is biased by including so much music, Hollywood, etc., to what standard must music/musicians be held in order to make the cut on Conservapedia? Just saying "common sense" doesn't quite do it. And just so you know, I'm a Christian, and most definitely conservative. Feel free to use THOSE labels at your discretion. I would love to add some stuff about music, but expect it will be taken down if it includes rap, especially non-Christian rap. Thanks Sutrebla 12:52, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
Sutrebla, we could fill a football stadium with liberals claiming that they are conservative. Watch Hillary Clinton pretend she's a conservative too. Wikipedia will welcome your entries about rap "music". We are a serious encyclopedia and learning resource here. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:58, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
Wow, now I'm a liberal claiming to be conservative. Another label, and I regret the last one I want to hear. How do I PROVE I'm conservative? Please review Matthew 7:1. And rap "music" in quotes? Nasty. What about Christian rap, I saw some on EWTN just the other day. A lot of people would put Arnold Schoenberg's music in quotes I think, but it is music nonetheless. Please do whatever you have to do to delete my account. You guys play rougher than Wikipedia. You will push a lot of sincere people away I fear. I wanted to upgrade your Roald Amundsen article too. Rats. Sutrebla 13:16, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
And now we see a classic example of Liberal style, with liberals trying to claim to be victims after they caught lying. SkipJohnson 13:24, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
Just wanted to say goodbye. May God be with you. Sutrebla 13:43, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

# 18

The current complaint #18 significantly misrepresents the contents from the Wikipedia project page for the Countering systemic bias project.

The first incorrect assertion is that the meta page "complains" that Wikipedians tend to come from Christian countries. The page was actually commenting on a survey of the demographics of Wikipedians: Some articles, sections, or subjects related to other religions or cultures may naturally be neglected because fewer Wikipedians are part of those religions or cultures.

The second misquoted section is really warning that articles pulled from all old and/or non-neutral sources may need to be checked for bias. The policy is not against Judeo-Christian values, merely to check that imported material is not biased. Material from The Atheist's Encyclopedia would get the same treatment.

The third assertion of #18 refers to a section that really warns that large scale disasters in the developed world are naturally seen by the Wikipedian demographic as less significant than insanely large scale disasters in the developing world. The example given is the coverage Al-Qaeda bombings, which is so detailed that it includes a medium length article on a specific search and rescue dog involved in 9/11. That's more than for many major leaders in the third-world Darfur conflict, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

I request that #18 be removed. - PostoStudanto 20:04, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

I reread #18 (now #20) and updated the minor revision in the "misquoted" section in the footnote. Wikipedia changed "predominantly Christian" to "nominally Christian." Whoopee. The rest of your criticisms of #18 (now #20) have even less merit. The Wikipedia meta page does complain about Christian "bias" in older sources. Too bad that liberals can't realize the difference between identity, perspective and bias. #18 (now #20) is correct but you have given me another point to add to liberal style here.--Aschlafly 21:29, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
Please don't attack me based on my word choice between perspective and bias; they both apply equally to the out-of-copyright sources that the meta article talks about. See bias. And how do you know I'm not conservative or moderate?
#18/#20 still distorts the intent and contents of the Wikipedia meta article, makes up accusations, and uses overly POV/biased word choice. For example, no one complained that Wikipedia is based on Christian and Jewish Encyclopedias; the Conservapedia writer literally made that up. Use of these texts is actually encouraged because they usually do a good job covering their area of expertise. The sources (including a public domain Encyclopedia Brittanica) just need to be checked for "ingrained biases, inaccuracies, and other problems reflecting the age and nature of the sources." I realize you want to score points against Wikipedia, but you only have to reread the article - the entire article - to realize that the #18/20 accusations are invalid.
As a side note, MediaWiki allows you to cite a single source in multiple places instead of using acronyms. See Wikipedia:Footnotes - PostoStudanto 19:27, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Admission of Liberal Bias

No complaints this time, I just thought I may have found a suitable addition to the list. Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales actually admits Wikipedia has a liberal bias (original source here). According to Jimmy Wales, "the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average." Slightly? Try six times more liberal.

Add or reject as you see fit. Feebasfactor 20:06, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Suicide entry (#5) not cited on key claim and here is some material which may help the entry. Also, know someone in the press who might be interested

Currently the #5 entry for Examples of Bias in Wikipedia claims there are 21,544 entries at Wikipedia that mention suicide. However, there is no citation for this claim. The Conservapedia commandments state you must give your sources. Is it not cited because you can only run the stats from a Wikipedia account? If so, how do you run that stats at Wikipedia? We should at the very least have a footnote which tells the reader how to run this stat at Wikipedia. I don't think we should take the 21,544 on faith. To do so would wreak havoc at Conservapedia because anyone could claim anything. For example, does Wikipedia merely use the work suicide 21,544 times including the talk pages? Does Wikipedia use the word suicide 21,544 times in its articles but not necessarily in 21,544 entries. With that being said, I am going to temporarily take the 21,544 claim on faith merely for the sake of discussion here but I do believe that unless the entry is cited or at least some method is available to verify it that it should be removed as soon as possible.

With that being said, I believe I might have some useful information in relation to suicide and Wikipedia in relation to its claimed inordinate preoccupation with suicide. Conservapedia mentions that Wikipedia has about 20,000 articles that mention suicide. If Wikipedia has about 2,000,000 articles that means that 1% of its articles mention suicide if the 21,544 claim is true which is a lot. Currently, we do not bring that out and 1% is a high percentage. Again, can someone tell me how you got the 21,544 figure of the number of articles that mentions suicide and can we cite this in our article so people can see it for themselves?

Next, I have a theory on why Wikipedia may have so many references to suicide. Please take a look at this article: Heavy Metal Music And Adolescent Suicidality: An Empirical Investigation - Statistical Data Included at: Also, please see this article: American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, The Influence Of Music And Music Videos at: Wikipedia is known for having a lot of emphasis on teen oriented music so maybe this primarily explains the apparent high percentage of articles on suicide.

Also, suicide is associated with physician assisted suicide which is legal in some liberal areas like Oregon and the Netherlands ( ). So this might also play a factor but I am guessing it is negligable.

My guess is that the teen music is the most likely explanation if the claim of 21,544 is true Lastly, can we look at enough of the articles which mention suicide to see in what context in which suicide was mentioned? Also, do we believe the above material or similar material would be appropriate to mention in the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" article for the entry dealing with suicide and do we want to develop this more. I ask this because I know someone in the conservative press who might be very interested in this claim if it is true. His organization reaches millions and it has an international reader base. We are currently working on a story together and he might be interested in this one too if I can verify the claim. Conservative 21:43, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

A search of Conservapedia shows that it has 0.87% of its articles mentioning suicide (144/16536). Those numbers are remarkably similar given the size of each collection. If this is a critique of one, it is likewise a critique of the other... unless Conservapedia is to remove instances of the word from its articles too (but then it would either be using euphemisms which reduces the impact of the word or avoiding history that is likely importance at showing the distasteful nature of it). --Rutm 21:54, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Rutm, Please tell me how you did the above stat. And does it count talk pages as well?Conservative 22:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Type 'suicide' in the search box and hit search. As noted in the 'search results' page that comes up, this is searching only the main space - not talk pages. On the 'View' click '500'. Right now, that shows 143 pages - apparently one has been changed since my previous posting. If one is to click the rest of the name spaces, that gives 190 pages. The 16536 comes from the Statistics link on the side, listing only the ones that have content. Right now, that is 16,544. Divide 143 into 16544 and you get 0.008643... or 0.86% (slight change due to number of articles - its easier to change this number with a smaller article base). Compare this to the quoted number of 21,544 articles and the corresponding stats on Wikipedia of 2,009,073 pages and you get 0.0107... or 1.07%. Coparably similar numbers. --Rutm 00:09, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
No, your comparison is meaningless. The percentage of entries about suicide should decrease as the overall number of entries increase, if there is no bias. Instead, that percentage increases at Wikipedia. Moreover, the content of those entries is very different on Wikipedia than here, further illustrating the bias. In Christ,--Aschlafly 00:28, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Andy, I am not saying there is not a systemic bias in regards to the Wikipedian population being inordinately preoccupied with suicide or even promoting suicide (inordinately preoccupied and promoting are two different things obviously). However, I will make 3 points. First, PROMOTES is a strong word and unfortunately at this point you do not show a single case of Wikipedia PROMOTING suicide. You did mention Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry but does that that sentence does not promote suicide. It is merely inappropriate to mention it so soon. Given that teenagers at Wikipedia (and there are a lot of them) may not be as socially astute this could easily be an explanation. In regards to Wikipedia's entry about Zerah Colburn ending with a claim that his distant nephew committed suicide this could merely be the type of rampant gossip and preoccupation with trivia regarding the rich and famous. Now I am I being picayune here? I can assure you that will not be like a unreasonable liberal who will nitpick to death and unreasonably ignore any future examples you give. I merely assert (and I believe reasonably) that you haven't yet provided a clear example of Wikipedia promoting suicide. Second, I do agree with RUTM that the percentages are similar although you might be right that Conservapedia's percentage may decline over time. However, while I think this may very well happen it is not a particularly strong argument at this point and promoting the strong claim that Wikipedia promotes suicide reasonably obligates you to provide reasonably clear evidence. Here are some suggestions. Give some strong examples of Wikipedia promoting suicide and/or wait until Conservapedia percentage of entries decreases in terms of the suicide percentage. I do think the important part is providing some clear examples of Wikipedia promoting suicide. In the absence of clear examples though in regards to Wikipedia promoting suicide I think you should wait until the Conservapedia percentage drops and then merely state that Wikipedia is inordinately preoccupied with the subject of suicide. I think it is better for a encyclopedia to make conservative claims and meet its evidential obligations rather than make claims that go beyond the evidence it provides. By the way, once the suicide matter is resolved I do believe we can easily leverage the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" article to provide us 25% to 33% more internet traffic by doing something very simple and I believe I am being conservative. It will also take about 15 minutes to do. Conservative 00:22, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm confident that with more research I could find more examples. However, the examples given are striking enough, and I see that Wikipedia changed them quickly in response to the criticism here. I've move on to other issues for now but please feel free to research further to improve our entry. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:59, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Andy, one entry mentioning that a distant nephew committed suicide is a striking example of Wikipedia HEAVILY PROMOTING suicide? Mentioning that a man committed suicide in the beginning of the article is striking example of Wikipedia HEAVILY PROMOTING suicide? How do those entries heavily sell people on the idea of committing suicide? As far as saying you could find more examples that could be used as an argument to defend anything. I think you will agree that many times the evolutionists say with more time spent evidence will likely show up. It is really not a compelling argument. I certainly expect better from you than I could find more evidence if I tried. Please instead of merely moving on to other articles please let us delete this entry if you are not going to adequately support it. I certainly don't expect you to drop everything and adequately support this entry. However, if you are not willing to support the entry then simply erase it. If you find time later to support it you can always put it back. Conservative 01:13, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Andy, thank you for removing the word heavily in regards to "heavily promotes". I really am not trying to be difficult and given that a Conservapedia editor whom I respect is agreeing with me on this issue via private letter I don't believe I am acting out of line. With that being said PROMOTE is still a strong word. I realize it would be a lot of work to dig through the garbage dump of Wikipedia in order to find sufficient examples to demonstrate that there are indeed examples of Wikipedia PROMOTING suicide since promote is a strong word. And who really knows if there are any examples? I certainly don't but I would not be surprised if there were. However, I think your time could be better spent than digging through the garbage dump of Wikipedia. Therefore, I suggest you wait until Conservapedia gets larger and revisit the issue. You can then compare statistics and then reasonably make the claim that Wikipedia is inordinately preoccupied with the issue of suicide if their percentage of mentioning the word is much higher than ours. Fair enough? Conservative 01:32, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
As per your suggestion I did a little digging at Wikipedia in regards to this matter and found some horrendous stuff. Andy, I put the following addition to the entry: (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more horrendous entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the sanctity of life). I have no problem with the entry now with my reasonable addition and I think it will put more pressure on Wikipedia to change. And we have caused some change to Wikipedia. I will also work on expanding the sanctity of life article I just created. I think this changes the dynamic. Before it appeared that we had a baseless claim. Now it appears as if Conservapedia is doing the right thing and doing it in a responsible manner.Conservative 18:40, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Here is a better change to the entry as per some feedback: (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the sanctity of life)Conservative 18:47, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Andy I made a recent change not as a compromise with you but as a compromise with TK as I fully expect you to agree with the change I made. I made the change so it does not appear as if Conservapedia is making a baseless claim and it rightly puts more pressure on Wikipedia. And I have noticed that in one case of our criticism of Wikipedian on another issue it appears our pressure on Wikipedia has caused change. It also strongly affirms the sanctity of life. Here is my suggested changed: "Wikipedia promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the sanctity of life). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,[1] and Wikipedia's entry about Zerah Colburn ended with a claim that his distant nephew committed suicide.[2] After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on Wikipedia. In yet another example, Wikipedia has an entry for "suicide by cop"[3] to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide, citing an unpublished PhD thesis at an obscure university."Conservative 19:11, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Conservative, why are you watering down Andy's language? Why are you seeking to curry favor with WP editors? Why do you continue to revert the Owners own edits? Why can't you use the email like other Sysops when you have doubts, or wish to make changes? What is your compulsion with altering ever post Andy makes to this section? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:24, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia does NOT describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable."

Here is what our Examples of Bias in Wikipedia article states: "Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, describes deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable."

With the above being stated it is clear that Wikipedia does NOT describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." like our article claims. The Wikipedia article in question is for an entry called "deceit(album)" that is located here: Here is what the article on "deceit (album)" actually states: "The Trouser Press Record Guide called the album "austere, brilliant and indescribable." So Wikipedia clearly said Trouser Press called the album in question "austere, brilliant, and indescribable."[14] Wikipedia is different from Trouser Press. Trouser Press described the album as "austere, brilliant,, and indescribable." Wikipedia did not. Why do we have to have an unclear statement in our encyclopedia? Would Britannica (which I don't even consider to be a great encyclopedia) keep something like this in their encyclopedia that is unclear and not true. I don't think so. Why do people have to go to Wikipedia to see that Trouser Press describes the album this way?

It is my hope given that I showed conclusive proof that our entry is wrong and since the conservapedia commandments state that everything you post in a article must be verifiable and true that this sentence would be removed. Clearly, there is no reason to keep it as is. The statement is both unclear and untrue. Conservative 21:59, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

I clarified my previous post. Conservative 22:13, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Uh, deception is the act of deceiving, and a search for deceit at wikipedia now redirects to deception, an article which has been around since 2002. This article does give a definition of what deceit is and gives examples of deceit in various circumstances. It seems that all along there has been a page covering deceit, and it was simply a mistake of an editor in redirecting the exact word to the wrong page. Furthermore, WP only says that deceit is an album in the same way someone could say that Evolution is a 2002 movie, and it is impossible for anyone looking for information on deceit to come across it, and even if they did there is now a link to the correct article at the top of the page. Hopefully this entry can be corrected EQ 23:25, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Um, you describe a change in Wikipedia's redirect in reaction to the criticism raised here. Before we raised the point, Wikipedia redirected "deceit" to a different term having a different meaning. Credit us for the change at Wikipedia, if you're going to be fair. In Christ,--Aschlafly 00:25, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Still a couple of issues with the entry:

  • The bit on deceit (album) doesn't demonstrate an example of bias, given that it is pretty much impossible for someone searching for the other definition of deceit to stumble across it (the only backlinks are from project or music related pages [15] and a search for deceit is a redirect). This entry is on par with saying WP has an article on Evolution (film) which describes it as "reminiscent of Reitman's Ghostbusters" or an article on Conspiracy Theory (album), which states it has sold 20,000 copies to date. Neither of these would have any bearing on critism of the Evolution or Conspiracy Theory articles on WP just the same as the article on the album deceit has no bearing on wikipedia's choice to redirect the word to a separate article
  • To say wikipedia does not have an entry on the exact word "deceit" is the same as criticising conservapedia for not having an entry on deception (note the redirect to deceit). The two words are interchangable and have pretty much the same meaning (deception is the act of deceit)
  • The redirect was changed 7 times in two days, however three of these were acts of vandalism and three more were reversions of this vandalism. Only one actually served to redirect the page to the correct site. Also, saying that it was done by a WP in response to CP's criticisms can give the image of lower standards on this site, because as clearly stated in #1 anyone can edit wikipedia, and CP editors could (if they wanted to) have changed the redirect to the proper word
  • The first line of the WP entry states "Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not necessarily true". The first line of the CP entry states "Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another." Both of these provide a clear definition, it's just a question of whether one is biased or not
  • Everyone is welcome to add to WP, if you don't feel that the entry on deceit contains enough examples then try adding some, just remember quality over quantity and that an encyclopedia article does not need every single case of deceit to explain it (it may contain a few examples to clarify the definition, and if necessary a historic recount of deception. The proper entry would be "List of Acts of Deceit")

EQ 00:28, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia encourages silly entries on obscure and liberal albums to build traffic. Yes, this does reflect its bias. Wikipedia encourages edits by anonymous IP addresses that lead to pervasive liberal vandalism. Yes, this does reflect bias. Wikipedia changed its redirect for deceit only after we complained here. Case closed.
The excuses made for Wikipedia are getting tiresome, but have led to an addition of another point in liberal style: liberals don't believe in accountability. In Christ,--Aschlafly 00:37, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
With all due respect your post failed to address many of my points. In short:
  • A new entry should be created on "silly entries on obscure and liberal albums" and the deceit (album) moved to there, at the moment it does nothing to contribute where it is
  • WP does not have an entry on the deceit just as CP does not have an entry on deception. The two words are interchangable and mean pretty much the same thing
  • The article does have a clear definition, it should be more a question of whether this definition is biased or not
  • The article does not have many example as it is not a "List of acts of deception". Examples are used only to clarify the point, quality over quantity
Please do not mistake this for making excuses on WP's behalf, I am merely trying to clarify this entry on the list and prevent any accusations of bias again CP EQ 00:44, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
  • WP entry states "Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not necessarily true".
  • CP entry states "Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another."
This is exactly the point. WP fails to highlight the moral aspects of deceit (or deception if you wish), or make a judgement worthy of condemnation. WP's entry on Murder for example says, "Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought'" CP's entry on deceit uses "deliberate." Rob Smith 12:35, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Rob is exactly right. Wikipedia conceals the intentional wrongdoing and immoral conduct at the center of deceit. Note also that Wikipedia changed its redirect for the term deceit in response to the criticism here in Bias in Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs to change further its entry for deceit.--Aschlafly 12:41, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Is there some alternate wording (which you would allow me to insert to Wikipedia as GFDL) which might solve this problem? One major semantic problem I see with changing the current wording is that it is possible to deceive by accident without moral slight - the Wikipedia entry's alleged lack of morality is partly based on this. Nihiltres 17:33, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
I agree that Wikipedia's definition of deception stinks. "not necessarily true"? Show me a dictionary or encyclopedia that states the "not necessarily true" idea associated with Wikipedia's lousy definition of deception. Conservative 19:06, 15 September 2007 (EDT)


A Wikipedia "philanthropist." [1]

Wikipedia calls terrorists "philanthropists." [16] This has been in there since the article was created in May 2006. [17]

Uhm... Whats the point? She might have been an philanthropists allso. WillM 17:00, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Wouldn't "alleged philanthropist" be appropriate; after all, just cause the FBI calls someone a spy or terrorist doesn't mean they're a spy or terrorist. We all know how incompetent FBI field investigators are, and I know firsthand how you cannot cite the FBI verbatim in Wikipedia, even when the FBI declares it has verifiable facts. Wikipedia still requires "alleged to's" and "supposedly's". Rob Smith 17:15, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Im still not quite sure what you are after, is the problem that she is called allso an philanthropist or that she isn't called a terrorist, alltho the article lists half a page her crimes? If thats the case, I can't see whats the obsession for naming people terrorists, she might be just that, but everyone can see that by just looking what she is accused from. WillM 17:35, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
There is no support for the far-fetched claim that she is a "philanthropist". Without support for such an incredible claim, why is it there??? Well, obviously, there are political reasons for sugar-coating violent liberal extremism.--Aschlafly 17:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

While the claim of her being an philanthropist could certainly use an citation, im not so sure if the reason for it being there is an communist conspiracy of first making her look good and then spending rest of the article listing her crimes, and uhm... Liberal extremism??? Mayby you are bit jumping to conclusions here... WillM 17:53, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

The "May 19" group (so named for it being Mao's and Malcolm Little's birthday), advocated the violent overthrow of the United States. While she is a terrorist, she's a low key and minor one. More concerned with how to stay out of jail than with coming to power, she is by no means a philanthropist. Samwell 18:03, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
This is what appears to be the case: Duke cited somewhere her occupation as "philanthropist;" Duke was arrested & indicted on several conspiracy charges connected with terrorist attacks, one including a terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol building; Duke jumped bail; FBI issued a poster with all information gathered on her previous occupations, and cited her as "philanthropist" which as an "occupation" could only be traced back to herself as the source. Why Wikipedia would refer to her as a "philanthropist" is a mystery, but the theory Andy expressed carries some weight, given that Harry Dexter White, a dead person who never stood trial, is referred to in both FBI reports and NSA documents as "KGB Agent Harry Dexter White;" nonetheless, I had much trouble even presenting just that evidence.
John Wilkes Booth never stood trial; Lee Harvey Oswald never stood trial. Both are dead, and both have been determined to be guilty of the crime of murder by various U.S. Government Commissions. Wikipedia does not refer to Booth or Oswald as the "alleged assassin," yet with a mass of evidence of complicity in all sorts of criminal activity on the part of hundreds of radical/liberal/communist/leftwing/subversive/activists, Wikipedia adamantly disregards the FBI as a credible source for factual information. And when the FBI declares in its files it has known facts, WP Admins still require "alleged to's". The argument here is, without trial & conviction, you cannot declare someone as guilty. Really? Look at Wikipedia's entry on Alger Hiss, even with trial and conviction, he's still not guilty. Rob Smith 18:22, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
P.S. we got an entry on M19CO. Rob Smith 18:22, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

liberals vs liberalism and creationist vs creationism - dictionaries verses encyclopedias

I do think that an encyclopedia should mention movements or systems of thought like liberalism, creationism, capitalism, and conservatism but encylopedias are not dictionaries and need not have entries on liberal or creationist or capitalist. So I removed the fact that Wikipedia does not have an entry on liberal which is an insignificant point and placed all the emphasis on the failings of Wikipedia's liberalism article. This way we go straight and forcibly to main issue and do not appear picayune to our readers. Conservative 19:21, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore and Dick Cheney

Regarding the Al Gore and Dick Cheney entry, I'm not sure that this is a problem. While Wikipedia does not mention it in the Al Gore article, it is mentioned prominently in the Al Gore III article (about the former vice-president's son), where it has two supporting references. I would also like to note that context is important for the "criticism" of Dick Cheney: I don't think the word "prominently" is quite accurate when it is mentioned in only one sentence in the 88 kB article, and noted to have affected his views on same-sex marriage a sentence later. For reference, please see the Wikipedia Dick Cheney article and the article cited for verifiability. It seems to me that there isn't any particular correction to Wikipedia needed or particular bias displayed in this example, is there? I'd like to confirm that this is still a problem, because it would be nice to fix any potential problems in Wikipedia. :) Nihiltres 13:49, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

We're not fooled by the placement bias that is pervasive on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia Al Gore entry is going to be visited far often, and perhaps 100 times more often, than the entry on Al Gore III. It's placement bias to bury the embarrassment in the obscure entry, and hide it from the main entry, when the Dick Cheney family matter is placed prominently in the very first substantive section in his entry. Maybe placement bias can fool users of Wikipedia. It doesn't fool us here. In Christ,--Aschlafly 13:56, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
  • I think it is a leap to connect his espoused views (those of a traditional conservative/states rightist), to any "issues" of sexuality. This is only done in furtherance of deceit IMO. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 13:57, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
TK, I am basing the idea of his view being partly based on that on the CNN article that Wikipedia references, which (the CNN article) quotes Cheney as mentioning that "[he and his wife] have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that [their] family is very familiar with" when speaking about same-sex marriage. [18]. I'm not trying to deceive, I'm just repeating what I see from a reliable source. :)
Aschlafly, I don't think that there's a specific bias in placing Al Gore III's information on a page of its own, given that he is a separate person. It is justifiable on editorial grounds without any particular bias - Wikipedia and Conservapedia each value that articles remain on topic, and that wider topics are separated into multiple, linked articles. I can imagine a conservative editor separating the two, in the interests of succinctness in the Al Gore article, which could use some (neutral) editorial paring regardless. That being said, placement bias is possible, though I find it unlikely that liberals would try to smear Cheney by mentioning a fact that he acknowledges, when many liberals don't have a problem with homosexuality in the first place. ;) (for the record, I'm straight)
I'll stop arguing now - I don't want to be combative here, I merely want Wikipedia to be dealt with fairly, and arguing ad infinitum won't help. There's a Wikipedia guideline called "Assume good faith" that I wish were used for criticisms of Wikipedia here. I'll tell you if I can find reasonable justification for the resolution of other examples on this list. In such a good faith, Nihiltres 15:10, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Nihiltres, I'm not going to waste a lot of time debating this with you. Of course liberals use the sexuality of Cheney's daughter against him. John Edwards brought it up during his debate with Cheney. Do you think John Edwards did that to help Cheney??? Admit the obvious, or don't waste our time. Meanwhile, of course liberals want to downplay the crimes by Gore's kid. Admit that, or likewise don't waste our time. Wikipedia's very different treatment of those analogous issues obviously favors the liberal relative to the conservative. If you don't admit that, then debating this with you is futile. I'll move on. In Christ,--Aschlafly 15:21, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
I notice there's not a lot of discussion about Chelsea Clinton, the progeny of the two most brilliant people to ever walk the planet who flunked her drivers test, walked out of college to start working at $100, 000 per year, and now has the independent, objective George Step-on-all-of-us pitching her boyfriends book. [19] Rob Smith 15:41, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
P.S. Coming soon to a theater near you: the truth about the Dick Cheney-Halliburton-Brown and Root-Franklin D. Roosevelt-Lyndon Johnson-Bechtel Corporation-John F. Kennedy's CIA Director John McCone- and KGB Agent-I.F. Stone connection. Rob Smith 15:48, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Nihiltres, merely repeating gossipy junk, no matter the source, isn't any excuse. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:50, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has been called by some the National Enquirer of the Internet?

Wikipedia has been called some the National Enquirer of the internet? Who is some? Please cite your sources! Please do not claim something without giving a source! It is better to not make a claim then make a unsourced claim! Who disagrees with me regarding the futility and undesirability of unsourced claims? I looked thoughout the article and could find no source for this claim. I could also find no source for this claim in the Wikipedia article. Conservative 21:28, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Google says that it used by many people. See [20] which gives many different commentators making the comparison. CalebRookwood 21:39, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
CelebRookwood, you didn't give me a single citation showing that a reputable commentator called Wikipedia the National Enquirer of the internet but said here is Google go and find it. I don't appreciate your "Go fish" post. This article via its unsourced claims is making us look bad and Wikipedia look bad. There is simply no need for us to look bad via the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia article. It should be easy to make Wikipedia look bad without making us look bad if we only followed the Conservapedia commandments. The Conservapedia commandments state you must give your sources and everything must be true and verifiable. If it wasn't so irritating the irony of it would make me laugh about it. Conservative 21:45, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
It didn't take me long to find an example: [21]. In Christ,--Aschlafly 21:50, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
  • It is apparent some editors are more interested in removing anything and everything that even hints at denigrating Wikipedia. Under the guise of "protecting" CP's integrity, they seek to "soften" the points being made for fear of what? Taking a conservative POV, and calling a spade a spade? That reference to Wikipedia has been around since WP started, in blogs, newspaper and television, politicians and web masters. Headlines, for comparative lists, which is what "Examples" is, do not need sources. At least not in scholarly circles, for lists are not scholarly articles. At least this list is properly sourced, and comparisons provided. These constant nit-picks, liberal-like parsing of words (worthy of Bill Clinton!) and plaintive edit notes have become an embarrassment to read. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 22:00, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Andy, that doesn't compare Wikipedia to the National Enquirer in any way close to calling it the "National Enquirer of the Internet," nor is he a reputable commentator. He does say that it has too much gossip, but that's nothing close to your insult. In fact, out of the top 30 searches on Google Web, the only pages that talked about gossip on Wikipedia were ridiculing Conservapedia for including the accusation. - PostoStudanto 22:05, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Andy, I sent you a private email regarding the anonymous essay. Conservative 22:19, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Why it's so biased

The reason Wikipedia has poor quality is that it is the realization of an egalitarian ideal. But the writing of trustworthy, comprehensive articles on important matters of politics, history and science cannot be done by whatever random team of volunteers happens to show up.

Even the lofty ideals of the United Nations require men of good faith to carry out, and giving dictators the same "equal" vote as democracies means that the UN's dedication to human rights will always be vetoed by countries which have no respect for human rights. (Recall that the U.S. was voted off the human rights commission.)

The egalitarian ideal of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit any article, any time. This means that kids with too much time on their hands have equal say with college professors, historians and scientists who have devoted their professional lives to a subject. Responsible, authoritative, knowledgeable people are staying away from Wikipedia in droves, and will continue to do so as long as they have to spend more time defending their entries than writing them.

Wikipedia has no ethics, no dedication to anything - other than "openness", and as Allen Bloom proved, if you are open to anything you eventually wind up "closed" to all that is good and true. Wikipedia is doomed and will die an ugly death. We better get ready to fill the gap and take its place. --Ed Poor Talk 22:08, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Does it really matter why it's so biased - the fact is, we think it's biased - any attempt to explain why is excessive - wouldn't all of this time spent here be so much more well-spent if it was used in the namespace.--IDuan 22:20, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Some editors are making unsourced claims and then we are trying to find sources which is backwards.

I do think that some editors are sometimes zealouslessly making claims and then we try to find sources to back them up as the "National Enquirer" claim shows. Clearly this is getting the cart before the horse. We should first do our homework and then make claims based on our research. If we did this we would not be using anonymous pieces. The conservapedia commandments say we must use reputable sources. Given that is free for anyone to use and you can create an article in 30 minutes this is not the source we should rely on regarding "some call Wikipedia the National Enquirer of the internet".

We should remove unsourced claims now and not wait untill sources can be found. If a unsourced claim is untrue there will be no sources for it. For example, to make a simple illustration if we say in the article that Fred Thompson was one of the founders of Wikipedia I could spend eternity looking for a source to confirm this unsourced claim but I will not find it. I will not find a source for that because Fred Thompson was never a founder of Wikipedia. Is my point clear here? That is why waiting until we get sources is so detrimental to the article. The article is fairly well sourced and there is only a small percentage that is unsourced and therefore suspect and/or errant. However, with that being said, I think it will damage our reputation needlessly if unsourced material that is errant is exposed. Why take unnecessary risk? It is much more prudent to rely on researched material rather than unsourced material. Sourcing is the beginning of other editors doing fact checking and is a very fundamental aspect of creating an accurate article. Solomon said a dead fly makes the perfume stink. This is exactly my point. Why let the unsourced statements that may later very well prove errant give a bad reputation for the rest of the article. I realize that because some things in a article are errant that does not necessarily mean that all the things are errant but nevertheless it is not a good strategy to purposefully leave unsourced claims in a important article. We can always put unsourced material back in the article after it has been sourced.

For example, entry #7 states that "the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a baseless newspaper claim from over 40 years ago that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS." Now do I trust the New York Times (NYT) reporters? No I do not. On the other hand, I think we should cite a article or articles that challenge that NYT newspaper claim if possible. If we can't find a source, then if possible we should at least cite portions of the article and assert why the article was baseless in regards to the claim regarding the leaders being members of the John Birch society. Now I am no fan of guilt by association. However, if Wikipedia states that Hitler was a member of the Nazi party we should not insist that is a baseless claim and insist that Hitler was not a member of the Nazi party and that Wikipedia is merely playing guilt by association since the Nazi party was depraved. I am not advocating guilt by association I am merely advocating if we say a claim is baseless that the some of the leaders were John Birch members then we should have the baselessness be true and verifiable. And again, I am not advocating guilt by association. I am merely advocating Conservapedia be true and verifiable. And if we cannot have a reasonably sourced claim then we should not make it. Conservative 00:11, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

  • First, sorry for shortening your screaming headline. They are just do darn long!
Second, notice your name is not in this box:
This user supports Aschlafly as the rightful leader of Conservapedia.

We have heard what you think. Repeating it again, for the one hundredth time will not make anyone notice you more, or agree with you more or less. Please sit down now. Thank you. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 01:41, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

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