263
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 491:
Line 491: + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 01:03, July 26, 2007
, 01:03, July 26, 2007→What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias?: reply
::Yes. "What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates" as I said above, and nobody can refute that, because it is indeed factual. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 20:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::Yes. "What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates" as I said above, and nobody can refute that, because it is indeed factual. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 20:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
I think the issue is that the title of the article is being confused with the subject. Many of the entires here are factual omissions or other problems that don't reflect bias so much as the potential for vandalism or simply the fact that Wikipedia isn't a complete project. The lead even acknowledges this; "silly gossip and blatant errors" aren't bias, and neither are unconscious omissions. (Otherwise, the absence of CP articles on figures like [[John C. Frémont]], [[George Wood Wingate]], [[Nelson W. Aldrich]], and [[Thomas Edmund Dewey]] would establish that WP is more conservative than CP, which is plainly silly.)
It may be helpful to better organize this list, categorizing each entry (or ordering it chronologically, or dealing with it in prose instead of as a numbered list), so it isn't quite as much a grab-bag of randomness. Right now, it feels a lot like a nitpicky rant, and it's very difficult to sift through it to find a way to fix things (or even to tell what's new).
Many of the things on this list can (and generally have) been fixed uncontroversially. It would be helpful to make it easy as possible to identify points that still need to be fixed and/or are new and make it clear why they're a problem, if your genuine goal is to enact change on Wikipedia. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
== Number 1 ==
== Number 1 ==