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 262:
Line 262: + +
→Identical criticisms: go ahead
: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.
: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)
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)
: Sure, you can merge them, but both criticisms are defective. The first fails to recognize that only "undecideds" are in the true middle, and they should be discounted because they will just follow the stronger side. The second fails because the [[liberal quotient]] is about people, not articles or things. But go ahead and merge as you like. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 30 September 2007 (EDT)