Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 343:
Line 343: + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 02:08, September 17, 2007
, 02:08, September 17, 2007Why it's so biased
::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)
::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)
== Why it's so biased ==
The reason Wikipedia has poor quality is that it is the realization of an egalitarian ideal. But the writing of trustworthy, comprehensive articles on important matters of politics, history and science cannot be done by whatever random team of volunteers happens to show up.
Even the lofty ideals of the United Nations require men of good faith to carry out, and giving dictators the same "equal" vote as democracies means that the UN's dedication to human rights will always be vetoed by countries which have no respect for human rights. (Recall that the U.S. was voted of the human rights commission.)
The egalitarian ideal of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit any article, any time. This means that kids with too much time on their hands have equal say with college professors, historians and scientists who have devoted their professional lives to a subject. Responsible, authoritative, knowledgeable people are staying away from Wikipedia in droves, and will continue to do so as long as they have to spend more time defending their entries than writing them.
Wikipedia has no ethics, no dedication to anything - other than "openness", and as [[Allen Bloom]] proved, if you are open to anything you eventually wind up "closed" to all that is good and true. Wikipedia is doomed and will die an ugly death. We better get ready to fill the gap and take its place. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:08, 16 September 2007 (EDT)