Changes

The project was initiated by [[Atheism|atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref> An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|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."<ref name="wnd.com">http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref name="wnd.com"/>  In December 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref name="tektonticker.blogspot.com">http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref>  Although Wales "made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker," he has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>

The project was initiated by [[Atheism|atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref> An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|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."<ref name="wnd.com">http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>  Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref name="wnd.com"/>  In December 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref name="tektonticker.blogspot.com">http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref>  Although Wales "made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker," he has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>

Co-founder Larry Sanger, who left the site, later acknowledged that Wikipedia does not follow its own neutrality policy.<ref>Uncommon Descent, December 1, 2016, Posted by Barry Arrington[https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-sanger-co-founder-of-wikipedia-agrees-that-it-does-not-follow-its-own-neutrality-policy/]</ref>

Co-founder Larry Sanger, who left the site, later acknowledged that Wikipedia does not follow its own neutrality policy.<ref>[https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-sanger-co-founder-of-wikipedia-agrees-that-it-does-not-follow-its-own-neutrality-policy/ Uncommon Descent, December 1, 2016, Posted by Barry Arrington]</ref>

{|

{|

|bgcolor=yellow|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Most examples have been moved to the sublists.  Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.

|bgcolor=yellow|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Most examples have been moved to the sublists.  Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.

#The Wikipedia article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758 List of consipracy theories]" ridicules and dismisses as "conspiracy theories" more hypotheses advanced by conservative thinkers than hypotheses advanced by left wing thinkers. The editor(s) of this page have an obvious liberal bias that hold in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758#Water_fluoridation Water Fluoridation] has been opposed by many conservative groups due to concerns about health impacts as well as a question of personal freedom and limits on the proper scope of government.  Yet, the Wikipedia list dismisses these views as a "conspiracy theory" that draws on "distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science". In another example, [[peak oil]] is a theory advanced by many conservatives including geologist [[T. Boone Pickens]].  Yet, the page dismisses it, noting "There are theories that the 'peak oil' concept is a fraud concocted by the oil industries to increase prices amid concerns about future supplies."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758|title=List of conspiracy theories#Peak oil|date=July 28, 2012|accessdate=July 28, 2012}}</ref>

#The Wikipedia article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758 List of consipracy theories]" ridicules and dismisses as "conspiracy theories" more hypotheses advanced by conservative thinkers than hypotheses advanced by left wing thinkers. The editor(s) of this page have an obvious liberal bias that hold in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758#Water_fluoridation Water Fluoridation] has been opposed by many conservative groups due to concerns about health impacts as well as a question of personal freedom and limits on the proper scope of government.  Yet, the Wikipedia list dismisses these views as a "conspiracy theory" that draws on "distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science". In another example, [[peak oil]] is a theory advanced by many conservatives including geologist [[T. Boone Pickens]].  Yet, the page dismisses it, noting "There are theories that the 'peak oil' concept is a fraud concocted by the oil industries to increase prices amid concerns about future supplies."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758|title=List of conspiracy theories#Peak oil|date=July 28, 2012|accessdate=July 28, 2012}}</ref>

#The Wikipedia article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Plan_%28Washington,_D.C.%29&oldid=478678893 The Plan (Washington, D.C.)]" is one of the conspiracy theories included on the official Wikipedia conspiracy list.  However, the article cites few sources supporting the existence of the conspiracy to replace black residents with whites in Washington DC and no sources that refute the existence of the conspiracy.

#The Wikipedia article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Plan_%28Washington,_D.C.%29&oldid=478678893 The Plan (Washington, D.C.)]" is one of the conspiracy theories included on the official Wikipedia conspiracy list.  However, the article cites few sources supporting the existence of the conspiracy to replace black residents with whites in Washington DC and no sources that refute the existence of the conspiracy.

#As of August 15, 2016, the article in En.[[wikipedia]] ("[]Murder of Seth Rich]]") had a ''motion to delete'' template on it, delete on grounds of not being notable, although at one point it was getting 1500 daily views.  It was so allegedly unnotable that a strong debate was generated there on the talk page and on the Delete Articles section, where editors essentially "voted" to Keep  vs. Delete, allegedly on the grounds of non-notability.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich</ref>  Among the arguments for deleting the article there was a repetitious reference to the talking point "conspiracy theory," though the article said nothing at all about a conspiracy theory.  Also, as of August 17, 2016, the Wiki editor who started this article, was officially blocked by an administrator.  His talk page said:  "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TradingJihadist</ref>  As of August 21, 2016, the motion to delete was denied on grounds of no consensus, although a derogatory false comment was attached attacking some of those who argued in favor of "Keep." Soon after, the article was summarily locked down until August 27, 2016, and a request for mediation was filed.   

#As of August 15, 2016, the article in En.[[wikipedia]] ("[[Murder of Seth Rich]]") had a ''motion to delete'' template on it, delete on grounds of not being notable, although at one point it was getting 1500 daily views.  It was so allegedly unnotable that a strong debate was generated there on the talk page and on the Delete Articles section, where editors essentially "voted" to Keep  vs. Delete, allegedly on the grounds of non-notability.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich</ref>  Among the arguments for deleting the article there was a repetitious reference to the talking point "conspiracy theory," though the article said nothing at all about a conspiracy theory.  Also, as of August 17, 2016, the Wiki editor who started this article, was officially blocked by an administrator.  His talk page said:  "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TradingJihadist</ref>  As of August 21, 2016, the motion to delete was denied on grounds of no consensus, although a derogatory false comment was attached attacking some of those who argued in favor of "Keep." Soon after, the article was summarily locked down until August 27, 2016, and a request for mediation was filed.   

::Despite the fact that the article was not deleted, several details about the murder were deleted from the article by the same editors who advocated for deletion,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#List_of_excluded_items</ref> leaving the article a rather short stub article.  And as of August 24, 2016, there was a continuing debate and vote on the talk page of that article as to  

::Despite the fact that the article was not deleted, several details about the murder were deleted from the article by the same editors who advocated for deletion,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#List_of_excluded_items</ref> leaving the article a rather short stub article.  And as of August 24, 2016, there was a continuing debate and vote on the talk page of that article as to  

::"Should this article mention the fact that WikiLeaks offered $20,000 in reward money for providing information regarding the perpetrator of this crime?" along with this template warning:  "{{Ds/talk notice|blp}}," which warned: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions."

::"Should this article mention the fact that WikiLeaks offered $20,000 in reward money for providing information regarding the perpetrator of this crime?" along with this template warning:  "{{Ds/talk notice|blp}}," which warned: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions."