Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,910
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 343:
Line 343: +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 02:19, September 17, 2007
, 02:19, September 17, 2007→Wikipedia has been called by some the National Enquirer of the Internet?
::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)
:::Andy, that source is merely a Blogger.com blog which are free to create. I could whip one of those together in 5 minutes and not pay a dime for it. We say in the Conservapedia commandments that sources have to be reputable. A Blooger.com piece is probably the lowest you can go on the foodchain of the internet. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:19, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
== Why it's so biased ==
== Why it's so biased ==