nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
902
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 00:39, September 9, 2007
, 00:39, September 9, 2007no edit summary
<br>[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5]]
<br>[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5]]
<br>[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive6]]<br>
<br>[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive6]]<br>
== The following have been corrected at Wikipedia ==
Thank God! At least that's a few less instances of bias and slander Wikipeda will try to pass off as truth. On the other hand, I suppose it's only fair to now remove them from the list...
*1) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit Deceit]" now redirects to lie.
*3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Schwarz Fred Schwarz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dravecky Dave Dravecky's] article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...
*4) The mention of JBS in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello Jerry Costello's] article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.
*13) A quote from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson Zach Johnson] to this effect has been added.
*15) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society article] no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".
*23) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia article] no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.
*24) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Operation Eagle Claw] mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.
Evidently examples 5, 6, 7, and 10 have been corrected some time ago, but I suppose they should be kept for posterity's sake?
Also, for example 8 and 16... it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia has an anti-intellectual slant and no respect for experts (a 14-year-old dropout has as much weight on a subject, if not more, than an actual professional or researcher in the domain). But does that really constitute "[[bias]]" per se, according to Conservapedia's definition? I just wasn't quite clear on that...
Hopefully keeping up the pressure will force Wikipedia to correct the rest of these errors - or even better, convince people to come to Conservapedia instead.
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:39, 8 September 2007 (EDT)