SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,592
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: +
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 06:27, September 30, 2013
, 06:27, September 30, 2013copied new item from main bias page
# Wikipedia's entry on the [[starlight problem]] is a typically atheistic distortion,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_problem</ref> omitting that light appears to older than the age of the universe under atheistic models as well as [[biblical]] explanations, and that the expansion of the universe can explain this anomaly under either theory.
# Wikipedia's entry on the [[starlight problem]] is a typically atheistic distortion,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_problem</ref> omitting that light appears to older than the age of the universe under atheistic models as well as [[biblical]] explanations, and that the expansion of the universe can explain this anomaly under either theory.
#Wikipedia falsely states that there is "'''precise''' agreement"<ref>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16 (emphasis added).</ref> between the data for [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] and predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]], when in fact the data are unmistakably different from the theoretical prediction, no data have been released since 2003 (perhaps due to such divergence), and even the authors of the study admit continuing imprecision by saying that "it seems unlikely that this test of relativistic gravity will be improved significantly."<ref>See [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]].</ref>
#Wikipedia falsely states that there is "'''precise''' agreement"<ref>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16 (emphasis added).</ref> between the data for [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] and predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]], when in fact the data are unmistakably different from the theoretical prediction, no data have been released since 2003 (perhaps due to such divergence), and even the authors of the study admit continuing imprecision by saying that "it seems unlikely that this test of relativistic gravity will be improved significantly."<ref>See [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]].</ref>
#Wikipedia has separate articles on many small wikis, for instance, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_History_Project LGBT History Project] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/LGBT_History_UK 6], but does not have an article on [[CreationWiki]] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/CreationWiki 45]. Articles on CreationWiki are repeatedly [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CreationWiki_%282nd_nomination%29 deleted].
#The "[[Pioneer anomaly]]" contradicts both the [[theory of relativity]] and Newtonian gravity, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly Wikipedia article] describes it as a potential defect for only Newtonian gravity.<ref>The anomaly is discussed in an unbiased way here in [[Essay:Quantifying Order]].</ref>
#The "[[Pioneer anomaly]]" contradicts both the [[theory of relativity]] and Newtonian gravity, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly Wikipedia article] describes it as a potential defect for only Newtonian gravity.<ref>The anomaly is discussed in an unbiased way here in [[Essay:Quantifying Order]].</ref>
#Wikipedia omits that there are serious contradictions within and objections to the [[Theory of Relativity]], instead presenting it as scientific gospel. (Example of contradictions and objections needed.)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity</ref>
#Wikipedia omits that there are serious contradictions within and objections to the [[Theory of Relativity]], instead presenting it as scientific gospel. (Example of contradictions and objections needed.)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity</ref>