Upload, Automoderated users, edit
78
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability? (view source)
Revision as of 04:55, January 18, 2007
, 04:55, January 18, 2007→Yes:
== Yes: ==
== Yes: ==
They censor non-Christian stuff. They're really really biased. They only accept LIBERAL BIAS!
They censor non-Christian stuff. They're really, really biased. They only accept LIBERAL BIAS!
Please read this: [[Wikipedia]].
Please read this: [[Wikipedia]].
== No. Not always: ==
Simply because they are liberally biased does not always effect their reliability.
For example: I want to know President Reagan dates. I go onto Wikipedia. They will tell me. They may also tell me he was a bad president. But simply because "they" tell me that he was a bad president does not mean they are unreliable and what they told me about his dates isn’t solid fact.
Now, (still on Wikipedia) I want to know about Jesus. I look Him up in that little search engine, and what do I get? Junk. Because He’s controversial in today’s world.
Almost everyone has a blind side to controversial issues. This does not make Wikipedia bad, it merely shows that they are human.
In addition, (to the comment that Wikipedia censors Christian things) Conservepedia is biased against liberals and Islam. We probably censor things that we believe are wrong. Doesn't that affect our reliability?
I am not defending Wikipedia, I am just saying that it is almost always a reliable resource.
-this is fun!-
--[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 23:55, 17 January 2007 (EST)