4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 376:
Line 376: − +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 16:27, March 5, 2007
, 16:27, March 5, 2007→Presence of an article about Conservapedia on Wikipedia.: Convert possibly misinterpretable remark to an ironic rhetorical question
:: That's OK, because this is great fodder for illustrating Wikipedia's bias. I've added a point (around #5, I think) in our list of Examples here. Watch Wikipedia's editors change its entry about Conservapedia as I point out its biased errors here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)
:: That's OK, because this is great fodder for illustrating Wikipedia's bias. I've added a point (around #5, I think) in our list of Examples here. Watch Wikipedia's editors change its entry about Conservapedia as I point out its biased errors here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)
::::Which would, of course, be a Bad Thing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:49, 5 March 2007 (EST)
::::Which would, of course, be a Bad Thing? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:49, 5 March 2007 (EST)
::: Point, if you look at the talk page for the Conservapedia there was additional criticism that didn't go in because it was decided that it would be problematic. Furthermore, attempts were made to find more reliable sources that were positive. Attempts were unsuccesful. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:46, 4 March 2007 (EST)
::: Point, if you look at the talk page for the Conservapedia there was additional criticism that didn't go in because it was decided that it would be problematic. Furthermore, attempts were made to find more reliable sources that were positive. Attempts were unsuccesful. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:46, 4 March 2007 (EST)