Changes

: 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)

: 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)

::They are different, because articles that are unbiased do not follow the stronger side. The points it criticizes are (1) that it discounts in groups the influence of the middle group, and (2) that the middle group in an encyclopedia, the unbiased articles doesn't swing. If the latter wasn't made sufficiently clear we can try to make the difference more obvious. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:20, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::They are different, because articles that are unbiased do not follow the stronger side. The points it criticizes are (1) that it discounts in groups the influence of the middle group, and (2) that the middle group in an encyclopedia, the unbiased articles doesn't swing. If the latter wasn't made sufficiently clear we can try to make the difference more obvious. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:20, 1 October 2007 (EDT)