| | # 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. |
| | # Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration. | | # Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration. |
| − | # Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]</ref> That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. | + | # Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public'''. |
| | # Wikipedia's entry on [[abortion]] reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref>. | | # Wikipedia's entry on [[abortion]] reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref>. |
| | # Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Its new entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and obviously outdated claims in the entry. Such biased errors are pervasive on Wikipedia. | | # Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Its new entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and obviously outdated claims in the entry. Such biased errors are pervasive on Wikipedia. |