46
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 254:
Line 254: + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
I followed the links in the article, and it seems there are now 81 Liberal Wikipedians and 71 Conservative Wikipedians, with 26 moderates. This reduces Wikipedia's liberal quotient from 3:1 to a mere 1.15:1. If these statistics are so prone to change, can they really be trusted? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:48, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
I followed the links in the article, and it seems there are now 81 Liberal Wikipedians and 71 Conservative Wikipedians, with 26 moderates. This reduces Wikipedia's liberal quotient from 3:1 to a mere 1.15:1. If these statistics are so prone to change, can they really be trusted? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:48, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
== Identical criticisms ==
Although most of the stuff under "Criticism" relates to different things, there are two parts whihc appear to be the same:
:Critics of the liberal quotient point out that it discounts groups identifying neither as liberal nor conservative, such as the 40% of moderates in the American public. A group with 97 moderates, 2 liberals, and 1 conservative has the same liberal quotient as a group with 1 moderate, 66 Liberals and 33 conservatives, although some might claim the latter group is more liberal.
And this:
:An encyclopedia with 99.7% unbiased articles, 0.2% liberally biased articles, and 0.1% conservatively biased articles, has the same liberal bias as a product with 66.6% liberally biased articles, 33.3% conservative articles , 0.1% unbiased articles. However, the first would be considered a reliable source of information, while the second would be highly unreliable. And this despite having the same liberal quotient.
Both make the point that the use of ratios can distort the data range. Merge them? [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 20:33, 30 September 2007 (EDT)