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
125,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 311:
Line 311: + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 19:21, September 16, 2007
, 19:21, September 16, 2007→Al Gore and Dick Cheney: reply, perhaps my last
:::Aschlafly, I don't think that there's a specific bias in placing Al Gore III's information on a page of its own, given that he is a separate person. It is justifiable on editorial grounds without any particular bias - Wikipedia and Conservapedia each value that articles remain on topic, and that wider topics are separated into multiple, linked articles. I can imagine a conservative editor separating the two, in the interests of succinctness in the Al Gore article, which could use some (neutral) editorial paring regardless. That being said, placement bias is possible, though I find it unlikely that liberals would try to smear Cheney by mentioning a fact that he acknowledges, when many liberals don't have a problem with homosexuality in the first place. ;) <small>(for the record, I'm straight)</small>
:::Aschlafly, I don't think that there's a specific bias in placing Al Gore III's information on a page of its own, given that he is a separate person. It is justifiable on editorial grounds without any particular bias - Wikipedia and Conservapedia each value that articles remain on topic, and that wider topics are separated into multiple, linked articles. I can imagine a conservative editor separating the two, in the interests of succinctness in the Al Gore article, which could use some (neutral) editorial paring regardless. That being said, placement bias is possible, though I find it unlikely that liberals would try to smear Cheney by mentioning a fact that he acknowledges, when many liberals don't have a problem with homosexuality in the first place. ;) <small>(for the record, I'm straight)</small>
:::I'll stop arguing now - I don't want to be combative here, I merely want Wikipedia to be dealt with fairly, and arguing ad infinitum won't help. There's a Wikipedia guideline called "Assume good faith" that I wish were used for criticisms of Wikipedia here. I'll tell you if I can find reasonable justification for the resolution of other examples on this list. In such a good faith, [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 15:10, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
:::I'll stop arguing now - I don't want to be combative here, I merely want Wikipedia to be dealt with fairly, and arguing ad infinitum won't help. There's a Wikipedia guideline called "Assume good faith" that I wish were used for criticisms of Wikipedia here. I'll tell you if I can find reasonable justification for the resolution of other examples on this list. In such a good faith, [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 15:10, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
:: Nihiltres, I'm not going to waste a lot of time debating this with you. Of course [[liberals]] use the sexuality of Cheney's daughter against him. [[John Edwards]] brought it up during his debate with Cheney. Do you think John Edwards did that to help Cheney??? Admit the obvious, or don't waste our time. Meanwhile, of course [[liberals]] want to downplay the crimes by Gore's kid. Admit that, or likewise don't waste our time. Wikipedia's very different treatment of those analogous issues obviously favors the [[liberal]] relative to the [[conservative]]. If you don't admit that, then debating this with you is futile. I'll move on. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:21, 16 September 2007 (EDT)