Changes

== Criticism ==

== Criticism ==

Critics of the liberal quotient point out that it discounts groups identify neither as liberal nor conservative, such as the 40% of moderates in the American public.  A group with 997 moderates, 2 liberals, and 1 conservative has the same liberal quotient as a group with 1 moderate, 666 Liberals and 333 conservatives, although the latter is arguably more liberal.  

Critics of the liberal quotient point out that it discounts groups identify neither as liberal nor conservative, such as the 40% of moderates in the American public.  A group with 97 moderates, 2 liberals, and 1 conservative has the same liberal quotient as a group with 1 moderate, 66 Liberals and 33 conservatives, although the latter is arguably more liberal.  

Also this metric can fail to distinguish between conservatives and moderates. For example, the liberal quotient yields the same result if there were 50 conservatives and 50 moderates as if there were 100 conservatives, even though the two groups have very different political biases.

Also this metric can fail to distinguish between conservatives and moderates. For example, the liberal quotient yields the same result if there were 50 conservatives and 50 moderates as if there were 100 conservatives, even though the two groups have very different political biases.

In this context it has also been pointed out that the term ''liberal quotient'' can be misleading, and is often mistaken to mean liberal fraction. The liberal quotient of 1:2 of the American public is, for example, often mistaken to mean that 66% of all Americans are conservative, although it is only about 35% according to the Harris poll.

In this context it has also been pointed out that the term ''liberal quotient'' can be misleading, and is often mistaken to mean liberal fraction. The liberal quotient of 1:2 of the American public, for example, is often mistaken to mean that 66% of all Americans are conservative, although it is only about 35% according to the Harris poll.

A more fundamental criticism is directed to use of the liberal quotient when applied to media outlets or encyclopedias. Rather than estimating the political orientation of editors, critics propose to consider the political orientation of the actual content. Recent scientific studies on media bias look at the media content, and use in addition other measures than the quotient of articles with a liberal bias versus articles with a conservative bias  [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=947640#PaperDownload][http://ideas.repec.org/p/umc/wpaper/0501.html].  Note, that both studies nevertheless conclude that most media outlets have a liberal bias.

A more fundamental criticism is directed to the use of the liberal quotient when applied to media outlets or encyclopedias. Rather than estimating the political orientation of editors, critics propose to consider the political orientation of the actual content. Recent scientific studies on media bias look at the media content, and use in addition other measures than the quotient of articles with a liberal bias versus articles with a conservative bias  [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=947640#PaperDownload][http://ideas.repec.org/p/umc/wpaper/0501.html].  Note, that both studies nevertheless conclude that most media outlets have a liberal bias.

Other criticism of the use if the liberal quotient is directed at the way it is used in comparison of the bias of Wikipedia with statistical sound results from a Harris Poll. The identified problems are:  

Other criticism of the use if the liberal quotient is directed at the way it is used in comparison of the bias of Wikipedia with statistical sound results from a Harris Poll. The identified problems are: