Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 300:
Line 300: + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 03:47, August 18, 2007
, 03:47, August 18, 2007→A word about wikipedia: reply
Where I come from, we have proper uses for organic fertilizer, and ''im''proper uses.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 21:19, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
Where I come from, we have proper uses for organic fertilizer, and ''im''proper uses.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 21:19, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
I have personally attempted to correct some liberal bias on Wikipedia but found that to be hopeless. My factual additions to an entry that related to education and evolution, which were not even about the theory itself, were reverted within 60 seconds. Other factual edits, like my additions there to an entry about Wikipedia itself, were gradually altered and removed over time. Wikipedia is beyond salvage value at this point.
Sometimes something becomes so broken that it makes more sense just to throw it out and get something new. Wikipedia, with all its bias and gossip and pornography and leadership trying to profit from a new search engine, is at that point. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 17 August 2007 (EDT)