Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
20,682
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: +
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 23:10, August 14, 2015
, 23:10, August 14, 2015Article on Neil deGrasse Tyson was purged of his numerous publicly stated fabrications
This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]], related to [[evolution]] and [[science]]:
This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]], related to [[evolution]] and [[science]]:
# 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's article on liberal hero, proud atheist and purveyor of science Neil deGrasse Tyson was purged of his numerous publicly stated fabrications. He constantly targets people that disagree with Global Warming and mocks politicians that have Christian viewpoints. <ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/09/17/if-we-cant-trust-neil-degrasse-tyson-who-can-we-trust/ If We Can’t Trust Neil deGrasse Tyson, Who Can We Trust?, Patheos, September 17, 2014]</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 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].
#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].