90
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 339:
Line 339: + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 02:05, September 17, 2007
, 02:05, September 17, 2007no edit summary
:::It didn't take me long to find an example: [http://conservativeeccentric.blogspot.com/2007/05/wussification-of-wikipedia.html]. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
:::It didn't take me long to find an example: [http://conservativeeccentric.blogspot.com/2007/05/wussification-of-wikipedia.html]. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Andy, that doesn't compare Wikipedia to the National Enquirer in any way close to calling it the "National Enquirer of the Internet," nor is he a reputable commentator. He does say that it has too much gossip, but that's nothing close to your insult. In fact, out of the top 30 searches on Google Web, the only pages that talked about gossip on Wikipedia were ridiculing Conservapedia for including the accusation. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 22:05, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
*It is apparent some editors are more interested in removing anything and everything that even hints at denigrating Wikipedia. Under the guise of "protecting" CP's integrity, they seek to "soften" the points being made for fear of what? Taking a conservative POV, and calling a spade a spade? That reference to Wikipedia has been around since WP started, in blogs, newspaper and television, politicians and web masters. Headlines, for comparative lists, which is what "Examples" is, do not need sources. At least not in scholarly circles, for lists are not scholarly articles. At least this list is properly sourced, and comparisons provided. These constant nit-picks, liberal-like parsing of words (worthy of Bill Clinton!) and plaintive edit notes have become an embarrassment to read. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 22:00, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
*It is apparent some editors are more interested in removing anything and everything that even hints at denigrating Wikipedia. Under the guise of "protecting" CP's integrity, they seek to "soften" the points being made for fear of what? Taking a conservative POV, and calling a spade a spade? That reference to Wikipedia has been around since WP started, in blogs, newspaper and television, politicians and web masters. Headlines, for comparative lists, which is what "Examples" is, do not need sources. At least not in scholarly circles, for lists are not scholarly articles. At least this list is properly sourced, and comparisons provided. These constant nit-picks, liberal-like parsing of words (worthy of Bill Clinton!) and plaintive edit notes have become an embarrassment to read. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 22:00, 16 September 2007 (EDT)