Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RickTx (Talk | contribs) at 00:55, November 18, 2011. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at FrontPage Magazine detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the political left; he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on Anne Coulter, Michael Moore, Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann which helped demonstrate the Wikipedia has a leftist bias plus he discussed the liberal/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.[1]

For example, Swindle wrote:

"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore​. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"[2]

The project was initiated by atheists and entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and the agnostic philosophy professor Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001.[3] An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".[4] Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue journalist Joseph Farah stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."[5] Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.[6] In December of 2010, Christian apologist JP Holding called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".[7]

List of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia

Below is a growing list of examples of liberal bias, deceit, frivolous gossip, and blatant errors on Wikipedia. The atheist Jimmy Wales was a lead founder of Wikipedia. Christian apologist JP Holding called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".[8]

Examples of Bias

Abortion

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion

Anti-Christianity

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity

Bestiality/zoophilia

See Wikipedia on bestiality

Conservapedia smears

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears

Conservative personalities and politicians

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

Gender bias

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Gender bias

Global warming

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming

Homosexuality

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality

Liberal Politicians

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians

Obama

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama

Science and Evolution

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution

Conspiracy Theories

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conspiracy theories

General/Uncategorized

  1. Twice in the second paragraph of the page on Nazism, Wikipedia proclaims the movement as a far-right form of politics, "says a majority of scholars". Back in reality, Nazi's are actually radical leftists. [8]
  2. Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that Jared Loughner, like many Wikipedia editors, is an atheist, and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a nihilist, an extreme form of atheism.[9]
  3. A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym Jagged85 made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [9]
  4. A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. Rush Limbaugh repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [10]
  5. Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a liberal politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for Obamacare, but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal Gordon Brown is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
  6. When someone goes to Wikipedia's "Constitutional Convention" page, users are taken to a general page about Constitutional conventions, instead of being taken right to the United States Constitutional Convention page. Since 2005, they have named the US page as the unheard of "Philadelphia Convention",[11] diluting its significance. They have not even renamed it "U.S. Constitutional Convention" and Google mostly matches "Philadelphia Convention Center" as a building. The US Convention is over 100-200 years older than the other conventions listed, and an Internet search confirms that "Constitutional Convention" is used more than ten times as often as "Philadelphia Convention," but the liberal and anti-American Wikipedia editors have insisted on redirecting visitors to the obscure term, for over 5 years.
  7. Wikipedia's article on engineering[10] features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient liberal boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the United States because they are not competitive.
  8. In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue, journalist Joseph Farah supports his observation that Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."[11]
  9. The articles on both Saul Alinsky and his book, Rules for Radicals make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."[12][13]
  10. Augusto Pinochet, who overthrew communism in Chile and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by Wikipedia,[14] but Fidel Castro, the communist dictator of Cuba for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".[15][16]
  11. Wikipedia's entry on Gardasil, an HPV Vaccine promoted by liberals and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"[17] (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.[18]
  12. If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.[19]
  13. Wikipedia editors tried strenuously to come up with reasons to censor embarrassing stories about the liberal John Edwards,[20] despite frequently including smears against conservatives.[21] Several sites have stories about Wikipedia's obvious liberal bias on this issue. [22][23][24]
  14. Wikipedia's article on cold fusion[25] presents it as a continuing controversy. Liberals hope that cold fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts. Cold fusion experiments are actually widely discredited. Wikipedia also presents the widely-discredited [26] Hydrino theory [27] as a possible energy source so that politically incorrect sources of power such as coal and nuclear fission seem less necessary.
  15. Liberals loathe self-defense, and Wikipedia's entry on the national self-defense system of the Strategic Defense Initiative is seething with bias and outright falsehoods.[28] Long passages are devoted to irrational criticisms of the programs, with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed John Kerry for president. The entry even claims that SDI brought "the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point!"[29]
  16. Wikipedia will give often great prominence to liberal criticism of someone, while almost never giving such prominence to conservative criticism of a liberal. For example, Wikipedia's entry for conservative Texas legislator Debbie Riddle is devoted mostly to liberal criticism of an obscure quote of hers.[30] But Wikipedia's entry for liberal Chuck Schumer consists of glowing praise without including any conservative criticism of him.[31]
  17. Wikipedia's entry on censorship omits any reference to liberal censorship of classroom prayer, pro-life advertisements, conservative newspapers on college campuses, or mentioning intelligent design in school.[32]
  18. Given that one of Wikipedia's co-founders, Jimbo Wales, is an atheist, it is not particularly surprising that Wikipedia is particularly biased against prayer in school, as illustrated by its description of Coach Marcus Borden's attempts merely to bow his head while his football players pray. Wikipedia's biased description disparages community support of Borden by saying it is "regardless of federal law"; the entry says he returned to coaching as urged by the community "ostensibly" to assert a right to bow his head during prayer.[33]
  19. Wikipedia has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States."[34] It shows a statue of a Revolutionary Minuteman carrying a rifle as "proof" of its claim! Wikipedia's entry is astoundingly biased, concealing how guns deter crime and refusing to cite John Lott, the leading expert whose studies support guns.
  20. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other conservative documentary films.[35] However, the lying, deceitful films of Michael Moore and other liberals are never described as "propaganda".
  21. Here's another example of why Wikipedia is declining: it locked its entry about Richard Dawkins to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.[36] Perhaps the atheists on Wikipedia don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
  22. The body of the Islamic terrorism[37] page opens with "Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase while the body of the Christian terrorism[38] page opened with Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side." [39]
  23. Wikipedia's entry on Peter Singer downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were removed as being "POV",[40] despite appearing in the like-minded New York Times.[41] A week after this criticism,[42] an editor restored the former quote.[43]
  24. Predictably, Wikipedia insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.[44] In characteristic fashion, Wikipedia misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to demonize them. Also in Wikipedia-style, it quotes liberal newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by National Review).
  25. Wikipedia described the People for the American Way, which is a liberal advocacy group,[45] as a "progressive advocacy organization"[46] and did not mention the term liberal in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.[47]
  26. Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.[48] But within hours liberals on Wikipedia completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about Hollywood Values, in order to censor examples of how the liberal ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".[49] After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."[50]
  27. Wikipedia entries contain liberal claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Michael Farris states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to conservative leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,[51] but its citation for that liberal claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's television ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."[52]
  28. Wikipedia's pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous conservative entries, such as that of pro-life scholar Mary Ann Glendon.[53] For nearly two weeks her entry on Wikipedia has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group. Liberal editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass conservatives to remain for a long time.
  29. As far as Richard Dawkins title of professor while at Oxford, Wikipedia fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".[54] Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.[55]
  30. Wikipedia's entry on Richard Sternberg has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed intelligent design paper that he reviewed.[56] In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
  31. Wikipedia has a strong bias against the Discovery Institute, a prominent proponent of intelligent design. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism[57] and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism[58]) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
  32. Wikipedia's entry on the Prodigal Son devotes more words to obscure rock band and liberal media references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.[59]
  33. Wikipedia's gossip and policy allowing edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.[60] The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.[61]
  34. Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to Michael Moore, whose official website published attacks on a Wikipedia editor with an open invitation to vandalize Wikipedia Michael_Moore and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's propaganda. Even that which supports my own position." [12] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [13] Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder Jimbo Wales allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[14]_note-0 The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank."[15]
  35. Wikipedia heavily promotes liberals in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on Boy Scouts v. Dale, a conservative Supreme Court decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"[62] Wikipedia eventually removed that liberal promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.[63]
  36. Wikipedia has once again deleted all content on the North American Union [16]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
  37. The Wikipedia article on Eritrea refuses to concede that Eritrea is a one-party state.[64] Another example of Wikipedia liberal bias: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
  38. Wikipedia often inserts bias by downplaying a liberal outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that liberals forced Larry Summers to resign as president of Harvard because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.[65][66] But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on Wikipedia implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.[67]
  39. Wikipedia welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly liberal. Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
  40. Wikipedia has two million entries, but not one for liberal. Users who go to that term are redirected to the Wikipedia entry on liberalism that conceals the liberal support of gun control and taxpayer funding of abortion, and liberal censorship of prayer in public school.[68]
  41. Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".[69] The word "deceit" has no entry on Wikipedia. It was redirected to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.[70] Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on deceit here.
  42. 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,[71] and Wikipedia's entry about Zerah Colburn ended with a claim that his distant nephew committed suicide.[72] 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"[73] to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
  43. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included:
    • pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[74]
    • anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[75]
    • the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[76]
    • conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[77]
  44. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Additionally, as of August 5, 2008, the Dravecky article no longer mentions anything about JBS.[78] Wikipedia left intact the smear against the AAPS. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then reinserted before being removed again.[79]
  45. Wikipedia's last sentence on Human Life International claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a conservative group. But this was approved by Wikipedia and remained for over a month.[80]
  46. A devastating critique of Wikipedia by Fox News describes the impact of Wikipedia smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.[81]
  47. Smears in Wikipedia's entry on U.S. Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.[82]
  48. "Larry Sanger, who founded Wikipedia in 2001 with Jimmy Wales only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the Wikipedia community 'had no respect for experts.'"[83]
  49. Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about Thad Cochran,[84] a conservative Republican member of the U.S. Senate, smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.
  50. Wikipedia smears prominent Christian conservatives, including James Dobson and D. James Kennedy, with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".[85] The term was made up by liberals and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these conservatives with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.[86] This edit [17] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.
  51. Wikipedia's entry about the anti-Christian and anti-Semitic H.L. Mencken praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with fundamentalist Christianity."[87] After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."[88] Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.[89]
  52. The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society[90] attempts to smear unrelated conservatives who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and George W. Bush should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes McCarthyism???[91]
  53. Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"[92] How about a new slogan: Wikipedia: well, duh!
  54. Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."[93] "A worldwide view" is fictional liberal terminology for globalists.
  55. Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.[94]
  56. Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.[95] Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."[96]
  57. Liberal icon Bertrand Russell receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."[97] After 7,700 words about Bertrand Russell, Wikipedia finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that Communism is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."[98]
  58. April 24th was the anniversary of Operation Eagle Claw, which was President Jimmy Carter's failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia entry explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia entry omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.[99] In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
  59. Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe[100] omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."[101] After this criticism was posted here, an editor at Wikipedia added Monroe's Cumberland Road Bill opposition to the article,[102] but the article still has yet to mention that Monroe was politically conservative.
  60. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[103] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[104] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[105] See also liberal quotient.
  61. One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing Wikipedia statistics. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.[106]
  62. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[107]
  63. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[108]
  64. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.[109]
  65. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[110] But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[111] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[112]
  66. Wikipedia editors who are agnostic or atheistic outnumber Christian editors 2:1.[113] This make them nearly 8 times as atheistic as America (in a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know). Also, a Wikimedia page surveying the religions of Wikipedia editors, showed a greater number of atheists using pages to ridicule Christianity.[114]
  67. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[115] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
  68. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[116] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
  69. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[117] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
  70. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[118] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
  71. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[119] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.
  72. Wikipedia's entry on the intelligent design court decision in Dover[120] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[121] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[122]
  73. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."[123] That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
  74. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."[124] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".[125] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.[126]
  75. Wikipedia's entries about media sources are biased towards the liberal media. In its entry on Fox News, Fox's conservatism is mentioned in the first paragraph[127], but its first paragraph on liberally slanted CNN offers no such information. [128]
  76. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.
  77. Wikipedia claims about 2.9 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".[129] 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.
  78. Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about Indentured Servitude is massive, but it omitted any reference to Bacon's Rebellion, which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."[130]
  79. Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an elementary proof until this omission was pointed out here.[131] Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
  80. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.
  81. Wikipedia's article on Feudalism is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.[132]
  82. Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, William Donald Schaefer, contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.[133] 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
  83. Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article previously spelled his wife's name incorrectly. The article was in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006[134] and until it was corrected on January 26, 2007 [135]. No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
  84. Wikipedia's entry for the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.[136] Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,[137] and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
    Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
  85. Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on Henry Liddell illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.[138] That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.[139]
  86. Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the Encyclopedia Britannica, wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
    "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."[140]
  87. Bob Schmidt observed on the Illinois Review:[141]
    I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
    I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
    They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
    In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
    Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
  88. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[142]
    "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.[143] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
  89. Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist John Lawrence Seigenthaler was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in USA Today, concluding with the following:[144]
    When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
  90. What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler afterwards on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:[145]
    "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
  91. The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."[146]
  92. 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 this story:
    "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
  93. Wikipedia has refused to have an article on Sudden Jihad Syndrome despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including neoconservative academic Daniel Pipes and a column in the Washington Times.[147][148][149][150] [151][152] and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.[153]
  94. Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service definition" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the United States, Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary Theory". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, liberal "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.[154][155]
  95. Wikipedia's article on Jeremiah Wright repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
  96. Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.[156] Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".[157][158]
  97. For a period of time (January 4, 2008[159] - April 5, 2008[160]), Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health had a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section that stated three references (The American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute) might not be reliable resources and should be reviewed.
  98. Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
  99. The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for EvoWiki. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puerile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.[161]
  100. Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.[162] Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', President Bush launched the War on Terrorism", "President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq" and "which President Bush viewed as..."' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
  101. Wikipedia's presidential template for George W. Bush is a sterile presentation of his life and presidency[163], but the template for Barack Obama is filled with non-notable, forgettable fluff such as links to articles about songs about him, a list of artists who support him, a Super Mario-type video game based on him and a list of places named after him.[164] (Note that there is no mention on Wikipedia of George W. Bush Elementary in Stockton, CA.[165])
  102. In the article for flood geology[166], the section containing evidence in favor of a global flood has the header "Evidence cited to support a global flood"[167] while the section containing evidence against it has the header "Evidence against a global flood."[168] Attempts to balance this disparity are met with quick reversions with excuses such as "I don't see this as an improvement"[169] and appeals referencing the so-called "scientific community" (i.e. the "scientific consensus").[170] Additionally, in a recent edit, Hrafn (one of the "usual suspects" who gang up and protect their preferred version of evolution and Creation articles) revealed his unabashed bias by reverting an edit with the explanation "all creationists are WP:FRINGE/'cracked pot[s].'"[171]
  103. Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? [172]
  104. The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title. [18]
  105. Wikipedia deleted 9/12 Candidate page (twice) due to lack of notability[173]. Creator blocked because his real name does not meet username policy[174] and editor (me) blocked[175] for spam/advertising and "conflict of interest, which is introducing a severe bias to your edits".
  106. VoteVets.org is a partisan political organization that seeks to elect Democrats and to replace Republicans in Congress. Wikipedia's erroneous entry labels the liberal group a "non-partisan" political action committee. [176]
  107. Just like the liberal-aligned MSM, Wikipedia is consistent when hiding unflattering information about their fellow liberals. Wikipedia purposely buried an important statement from Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the now-infamous "Wise Latina" remark. One has to scroll through 49,600 characters of a 54,000 character page to find the statement. Also, Wikipedia does not mention her membership in La Raza, a group that has promoted the distribution of driver's licenses to illegal aliens, amnesty programs for illegal aliens, and the non-enforcement of immigration laws [177]
  108. Wikipedia's Template:Infobox and elsewhere still maintains the fiction that Barack Hussein Obama was a "Professor of Constitutional Law," whereas White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has flatly denied Obama ever taught constitutional law. [19]
  109. Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a liberal anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the Communist North Vietnam. [20] [21]
  110. One of Wikipedia's barnstars—given nominally for World War II writing contributions—is in fact an American flag desecrated with Nazi and Soviet Union graffiti.
  111. Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [22]
  112. In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [23] That is a key point that liberals want to hide from the public. [24] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item Failed bomb aboard Delta flight article. [25]
  113. Wikipedia's Communism article omits to mention that millions of people have perished as a result of the Marxist ideology. Near the very end of the article they mention "alleged by some scholars to be responsible for famines, purges and warfare resulting in deaths." The article states "classes are abolished" "oppression-free society" and policies made "democratically" without mentioning those positions are really just propaganda. [26]
  114. Wikipedia's article on Martin Luther King Jr. is extensive. There is little doubt that King was known for civil rights. However, Wikipedia fails to recognize King's main 'Influence', Jesus Christ. King's life was Jesus from day one, his entire life was Christ inspired. As Dr. King Jr said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." [27]
  115. Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with John Edwards. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article "Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied." Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [28] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
  116. Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements. [178]
  117. Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling Londonderry by it's unofficial slang name "derry"[179] and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished[180]. Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
  118. The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the Tea Party Nation by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to backup the claim. [29]
  119. Wikipedia reveals in its article "CIA activities in Iran" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."[181] Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles--the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."[182] Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.
  120. Wikipedia's "Fall of Saigon" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."[183] According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.[184]
  121. Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;[185] several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.[186]
  122. Wikipedia's "Communism in Vietnam" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."[187] In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.[188]
  123. Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."[189] The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;[190] the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.[191]
  124. Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in Guatemala being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;[192] Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.[193]
  125. Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""[194] However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"[195] even though they killed exponentially more people.[196]
  126. Although the Free Republic is (correctly) not allowed as a source on Wikipedia; the Srbrenica massacre denying[197] hate site ZNet is regularly used as a source--as is the neo-Nazi blog[198] CounterPunch.
  127. Wikipedia's George W. Bush article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."[199] In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.[200] The American army in Iraq has taken three times as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.[201] Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,[202][203] or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).[204]
  128. A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"--is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.[205] He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.[206]
  129. Take a look at the WP article for the John Birch Society and associated discussion page on Wikipedia, regarding the labeling of the JBS as being "radical right-wing". Any attempts to remove "radical" are quickly reverted by the liberal gatekeepers, and the editor warned or banned. Now take a look at the article for Code Pink--considered by many as "radical left-wing". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.[207][208] The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "far-left" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.
  130. Wikipedia censors the word Supercar from almost all of its articles. This is due to the fact that some admins don't want to call American cars "supercars" and decided to censor the term altogether.

Humorous quotes relating to bias and Wikipedia

See also: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd - satire

An article entitled Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds declared:

So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?

A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.

As you suspected: nerds.[209]

Song excerpt

All of my action figures are Cherry,

Stephen Hawking's in my library....

I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme, whiter than sour cream...

They see me strollin', they're laughin' And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so White and nerdy". - White and Nerdy, Weird Al Yankovic[210]

See also

External Links

References

  1. How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1
  2. How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1
  3. http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/
  4. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/
  5. http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640
  6. http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640
  7. http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia
  8. http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia
  9. When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [1].
  10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering
  11. http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640
  12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
  13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
  14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet
  15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro
  16. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888
  17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil
  18. See HPV Vaccine
  19. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296
  20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards
  21. For example, Wikipedia does mention the liberal New York Times' poorly-researched allegations that John McCain had an affair [2] in spite of the fact that the NYT's own ombudsman said there was "no proof" the story was true.[3]
  22. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal
  23. http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free
  24. http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/
  25. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
  26. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127
  27. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills
  28. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
  29. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
  30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle
  31. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer
  32. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
  33. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Brunswick_Public_Schools#Controversy
  34. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States
  35. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films
  36. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862
  37. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#.22Islamic.22_terrorism
  38. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Racism.2C_Sexism.2C_.26_Terrorism
  39. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Theological_justification_of_Christian_violence
  40. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933
  41. Paul Zielbauer, Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia. The New York Times: Oct. 13, 1999
  42. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152
  43. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718
  44. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
  45. http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp
  46. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way
  47. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955
  48. Such as the entry on D'oh
  49. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1
  50. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008
  51. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris
  52. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141
  53. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon
  54. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html
  55. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html
  56. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg
  57. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism
  58. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
  59. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son
  60. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838
  61. http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html
  62. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 liberal list by Time magazine).
  63. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale
  64. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea
  65. http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt
  66. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html
  67. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers
  68. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no
  69. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)
  70. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history
  71. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451
  72. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074
  73. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop
  74. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803
  75. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808
  76. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons
  77. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640
  78. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=225907517
  79. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&diff=156607328&oldid=156100194
  80. [4] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.
  81. In addition to the Fox News report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[5]
  82. http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2
  83. http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794
  84. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)
  85. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
  86. See, e.g., D. James Kennedy
  87. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken
  88. Ibid.
  89. http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp
  90. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society
  91. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
  92. Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was critized here
  93. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance
  94. http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/
  95. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba
  96. Cuba
  97. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell
  98. Bertrand Russell
  99. Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."entry
  100. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe
  101. James Monroe
  102. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=226448821#Presidency_1817.E2.80.931825:_The_Era_of_Good_Feelings
  103. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444
  104. Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories Liberal Wikipedians with those in Conservative Wikipedians. Both categories were deleted on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "conservative" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "liberal" userbox than the "conservative" userbox.
  105. "Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, such that no liberals would equate to zero liberal bias. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for liberals to conservatives.
  106. Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[6]
  107. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)
  108. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics
  109. Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[7]
  110. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm
  111. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood
  112. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark
  113. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_religion
  114. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion
  115. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act
  116. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller
  117. The version criticized above; the note left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the current version.
  118. This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act
  119. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers
  120. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
  121. Id.
  122. Id.
  123. Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia
  124. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
  125. Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia
  126. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history
  127. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_news
  128. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnn
  129. Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.
  130. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992
  131. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof
  132. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
  133. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer
  134. John Tower, revision as of Jan 25
  135. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&offset=20070208110937&limit=20&action=history
  136. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act
  137. http://www.909shot.com/
  138. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell
  139. http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
  140. http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp
  141. http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html
  142. http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html
  143. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2
  144. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm
  145. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3
  146. http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars
  147. http://www.nysun.com/article/29080
  148. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome
  149. http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp
  150. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome
  151. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome
  152. http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001
  153. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome
  154. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Military_service_definition
  155. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Insurrectionary_theory
  156. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States
  157. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States
  158. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States
  159. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&oldid=182111544
  160. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&diff=203433685&oldid=202851436
  161. <http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)
  162. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
  163. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:George_W._Bush
  164. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama
  165. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22george+w.+bush+elementary%22+stockton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
  166. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology
  167. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_cited_to_support_a_global_flood
  168. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_against_a_global_flood
  169. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=288093849&oldid=288042808
  170. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=next&oldid=288488331
  171. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=289076441&oldid=289074740
  172. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= Wikipedia- Purity ring
  173. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/12_Candidate
  174. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacob_F._Roecker
  175. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WashingtonIsBroke#User:WashingtonIsBroke
  176. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VoteVets.org&diff=293037611&oldid=293035975 VoteVets.org
  177. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonia_Sotomayor&diff=302177838&oldid=302177614
  178. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history
  179. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry
  180. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232
  181. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran
  182. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran
  183. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath
  184. Orange County Register (29 April 2001)
  185. Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.
  186. Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press, 1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).
  187. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam
  188. Rummel, Rudolph, Statistics of Vietnamese Democide, in his Statistics of Democide.
  189. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia
  190. The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.
  191. The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.
  192. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day
  193. “Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.
  194. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990
  195. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history
  196. Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.
  197. Kamm, Oliver, Chomsky's Outlet's
  198. Harry's Place, "CounterPunch," http://hurryupharry.org/2005/02/27/counterpunch/
  199. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy
  200. http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp
  201. http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp
  202. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer
  203. http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019
  204. New York Times, February 1, 2002.
  205. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey
  206. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose
  207. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society
  208. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink
  209. http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds
  210. http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm

Guidelines for inclusion:

  • Each entry must include a diff which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
  • Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
  • Please post the content to the appropriate sub article if possible. I (ctown200) am still working on breaking this article into sub topics. It's taking me too long!