1,631
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 191:
Line 191: + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 22:50, January 30, 2007
, 22:50, January 30, 2007→Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
'''FURTHER REPLY''' Many Harry Potter fans are under 12 years old. And if an adult editor is naming himself after a silly Harry Potter figure, then that is also worth knowing. If an editor deleting pages on Wikipedia called himself "Winnie the Pooh" or the "Easter Bunny" then that would raise some concerns. Does Wikipedia have an age limit on editors? Does Wikipedia have a requirement that editors be informed, or be objective, or even take their responsibilities seriously? It is startling that an editor having power to delete entire entries in Wikipedia names himself after a silly Harry Potter figure. By the way, I do doubt that editor has an informed understanding of the Bible, and I also doubt he even cares. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:39, 30 January 2007 (EST)
'''FURTHER REPLY''' Many Harry Potter fans are under 12 years old. And if an adult editor is naming himself after a silly Harry Potter figure, then that is also worth knowing. If an editor deleting pages on Wikipedia called himself "Winnie the Pooh" or the "Easter Bunny" then that would raise some concerns. Does Wikipedia have an age limit on editors? Does Wikipedia have a requirement that editors be informed, or be objective, or even take their responsibilities seriously? It is startling that an editor having power to delete entire entries in Wikipedia names himself after a silly Harry Potter figure. By the way, I do doubt that editor has an informed understanding of the Bible, and I also doubt he even cares. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:39, 30 January 2007 (EST)
'''Relpy''' Upon what do you base this claim? Does the name "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" indicate ignorance of the bible? I must confessmy disappointment in your judgment of this editor based on nothing but his user name.
Earlier in this debate you said: "Censorship by an anonymous person is bad enough. But it is even worse when the censorship is by someone displaying a silly description of himself." I must point out that deleting the article on conservapedia was '''''not''''' censorship or anything like censorship. The conservapedia article did not meet wikipedia's standards and was deleted through a very fair procedure.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:50, 30 January 2007 (EST)
:I think your description of the role played by "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington," in the process by which the article on Conservapedia was deleted from Wikipedia, is factually inaccurate... or at least makes it easy for a reader to draw a factually inaccurate inference. I'll leave it up to you whether you feel like taking on the challenge of rewording it in a way that I will acknowledge is accurate, while still making the points you want to make. (E.g. it is accurate to say that Wikipedia gave admin privileges to an anonymous user with a silly screen name). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:00, 30 January 2007 (EST)
:I think your description of the role played by "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington," in the process by which the article on Conservapedia was deleted from Wikipedia, is factually inaccurate... or at least makes it easy for a reader to draw a factually inaccurate inference. I'll leave it up to you whether you feel like taking on the challenge of rewording it in a way that I will acknowledge is accurate, while still making the points you want to make. (E.g. it is accurate to say that Wikipedia gave admin privileges to an anonymous user with a silly screen name). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:00, 30 January 2007 (EST)