Changes

#  Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left.  In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen.  For example, even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of [[evolution]],<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution</ref>  Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias in the absence of affirmative steps to limit it.  [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action.  As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.

#  Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left.  In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen.  For example, even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of [[evolution]],<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution</ref>  Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias in the absence of affirmative steps to limit it.  [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action.  As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.

#:The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this:  "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory.  CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective[citation needed] because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."  

#:The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this:  "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory.  CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective[citation needed] because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."  

#  Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacks any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]].  Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.

#  Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacks any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]].  Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.

#  The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.

#  The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.