Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,795
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 59:
Line 59: + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 20:50, April 30, 2007
, 20:50, April 30, 2007no edit summary
::::::Which has sometimes occurred at Conservapedia as well, of course... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Which has sometimes occurred at Conservapedia as well, of course... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: OK, but we'll correct it when it is identified. Does Wikipedia????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Hasn't that logic been used before on CP? The Theory of Evolution article is touted as being the best because it gets so many hits and has so many citations, but if you took a second to read the talk page you'd see otherwise. I don't know what "factual" statements Andy added, but if they're anything like the bias listed here, of course they were removed since they don't meet the mainstream definition of bias. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Hasn't that logic been used before on CP? The Theory of Evolution article is touted as being the best because it gets so many hits and has so many citations, but if you took a second to read the talk page you'd see otherwise. I don't know what "factual" statements Andy added, but if they're anything like the bias listed here, of course they were removed since they don't meet the mainstream definition of bias. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)