User:Conservative/biaswikipedia
From Conservapedia
Wikipedia and lewd material
Wikipedia states:
"While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted."[1]
Wikipedia and postmodernism
Wikipedia states:
"There's no such thing as objectivity Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible.
This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy, as well as the most common misunderstanding of it. The policy says nothing about objectivity, or whether there is such a thing: a "view from nowhere" to use Thomas Nagel's phrase. Rather, the policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them.[2]
At first, Wikipedia states there is no such thing as objectivity and everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that and then Wikipedia almost immediately alludes to the fact there is a view that objectivity may exist. The above material by Wikipedia points to Wikipedia having somewhat of a postmodern methodology in how it writes its material. Postmodernism is championed by liberals.
Wikipedia and window dressing in regards to NPOV policy
Wikipedia's window dressing in regards to their claimed but not real neutrality policy:
Wikipedia states:
Wikipedia also states:
"Making necessary assumptions
What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?
No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc.
It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate, however; for example, in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argument over some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own."[3]
Wikipedia clearly states that evolution is a controversial topic but it rarely, if ever, points to creation science articles. And creation scientists have peer reviewed publications like Creation Research Quarterly and supposedly these are given more weight by Wikipedia.[4]
