24
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 651:
Line 651: + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 18:29, March 14, 2007
, 18:29, March 14, 2007→Liberal Wikipedians as compared to conservative Wikipedians
::::: Sorry to be so blunt, but this is just a weasel statement, because you won't admit that you used bad statistics combined with poor fractional math. If wikipedia is so secretive to not provide any good numbers, then don't use their numbers. There are many good points you could make, but this is not one of them. Its a godsend for the liberals. --[[User:Order|Order]] 15:03, 14 March 2007 (AEST)
::::: Sorry to be so blunt, but this is just a weasel statement, because you won't admit that you used bad statistics combined with poor fractional math. If wikipedia is so secretive to not provide any good numbers, then don't use their numbers. There are many good points you could make, but this is not one of them. Its a godsend for the liberals. --[[User:Order|Order]] 15:03, 14 March 2007 (AEST)
:::::: Agreed. This is a real black-eye on Conservapedia on several fronts: 1) the "poll" of Wikipedians is self-selected... in the business of polling, that discounts it as useless up-front 2) this is an informal element of Wikipedia, which [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Wikipedians_by_Politics_I Wikipedia itself is attempting to remove] (and such removal efforts have continued in various forms for years) because of its divisiveness 3) there's no correlation drawn between this self-selected data and the actual extent to which people contribute to Wikipedia... it's entirely possible that there's weighting here that renders the ''implication'' incorrect, even if the data were correct. There are some good criticisms on this list, and it really doesn't need this one that makes the rest look bad. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 14:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
== How are we supposed to contribute? ==
== How are we supposed to contribute? ==