7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 200:
Line 200: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 03:09, September 13, 2007
, 03:09, September 13, 2007New examples of bias
: I reread #18 (now #20) and updated the minor revision in the "misquoted" section in the footnote. Wikipedia changed "predominantly Christian" to "nominally Christian." Whoopee. The rest of your criticisms of #18 (now #20) have even less merit. The Wikipedia meta page does complain about Christian "bias" in older sources. Too bad that [[liberal]]s can't realize the difference between identity, perspective and bias. #18 (now #20) is correct but you have given me another point to add to [[liberal style]] here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:29, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
: I reread #18 (now #20) and updated the minor revision in the "misquoted" section in the footnote. Wikipedia changed "predominantly Christian" to "nominally Christian." Whoopee. The rest of your criticisms of #18 (now #20) have even less merit. The Wikipedia meta page does complain about Christian "bias" in older sources. Too bad that [[liberal]]s can't realize the difference between identity, perspective and bias. #18 (now #20) is correct but you have given me another point to add to [[liberal style]] here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:29, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
== New examples of bias ==
# Wikipedia does not allow someone to be an administrator if he is a creepy stalker. Conservapedia [[user:TK|does]]!
# Wikipedia has few paranoid, Communist-obsessed administrators, especially if these persons exhibit no personal skills, enjoy banning other users and squelching otherwise intelligent debate, and have little-to-no ability to carry on an intelligible conversation. Conservapedia, however, uses its own version of [[affirmative action]] to [[user:RobS|promote]] them.
# Wikipedia does have [[user:Ed_Poor|Ed Poor]]. So does Conservapedia. Sucks for both of them.
# Wikipedia tries to avoid heliocentrism, but Conservapedia is free to reveal the [[Isaac Newton|real controversy]] and also encourages the [[user:Rschlafly|feeble-minded]] to contribute at will!
# Conservapedia realizes that a true balance of power between admin<!----------------Ic3w3dg3------------->istrators and average editors is best acheived by [[user:Conservative|promoting third-graders]] to administrative positions, to ensure that, regardless of the power indifference, editors will always know they are smarter than administrators. However, Wikipedia does not promote this inverse power structure, and in fact encourages only smart people to edit. Such discrimination.
# Conservapedia recognizes that sometimes free speech goes too far; speech that induces thought is immediately banned here. Wikipedia, though, allows dangerously different ideas to percolate and potentially create dissent. OH NOES.
# Conservapedia recognizes that, for every fact, there is an equally valid alternative explanation.
# Wikipedia won't tell you that [[dinosaurs]] are still alive today. But we will!
# Wikipedia would never [http://www.conservapedia.com/American_Government_Lectures encourage] children to swallow wholesale one ideology, to the exclusion of all others, out of fear for so-called balance, which these fools allege is necessary to participation in government as intelligent citizens. Conservapedia recognizes that this is a liberal ideal, and teaches children that intelligent citizens know there is only one side to every issue: your side, thus encouraging good citizenship and [[user:TK|politeness]].
-[[User:Shrike|Shrike]] 23:09, 12 September 2007 (EDT)