Changes

#  Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D.  The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise?  Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the [[CE]] deception.

#  Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D.  The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise?  Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the [[CE]] deception.

#  The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give any credit to Christianity.

#  The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give any credit to Christianity.

# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia.  In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref>  The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

# Until a complaint was lodged, Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, gave undue weight to a rant by a British journalist against the group, which it quoted at excessive length.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref>  The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading remarks about the group.  While the trimming of this rant is a step in the right direction, why is such an unsupported, unpublished diatribe allowed to remain on Wikipedia at all?  It is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), yet it is allowed as a liberal rant against a conservative group.  The entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

#  There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia.  In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref>  The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

#  Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American.  Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation", even there there are far more American than British users.  Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labor</ref>.  Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg".  Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American.  Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

#  Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American.  Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation", even there there are far more American than British users.  Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labor</ref>.  Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg".  Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American.  Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

#  The entry for the Spanish Golden Age does not even tell the reader when it occurred, but makes the doubtful claim that the Spanish Golden Age flourished in Latin America.

#  The entry for the Spanish Golden Age does not even tell the reader when it occurred, but makes the doubtful claim that the Spanish Golden Age flourished in Latin America.

#:Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites.

#:Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites.

# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royality, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree."  The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref>.  That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college.  The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame:  his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]].  The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.  This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>

# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royality, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree."  The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref>.  That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college.  The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame:  his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]].  The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.  This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>

# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>

# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>

::I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.

::I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.

::In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.

::In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.

::Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.

::Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.

----

----

==References==

==References==

<references/>

<references/>