53
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 581:
Line 581: + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 21:08, December 29, 2007
, 21:08, December 29, 2007Zeta - if we want to go there?
:For accuracy's sake, they don't update that record of vandalism. They used to keep track of the most humorous stuff, but now they only keep the page for posterity. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:For accuracy's sake, they don't update that record of vandalism. They used to keep track of the most humorous stuff, but now they only keep the page for posterity. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)
== Zeta - if we want to go there? ==
I don't know if anyone wants to go quite so deep into the cesspit that is Wikipedia, so I'll ask. The article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia Zoophilia] i.e. bestiality, has to be the most biased in the whole place, in a way that is disgusting. It portrays a very romantic version of bestiality as a lifestyle. It is unsourced in many places, e.g. the section on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#_ref-9 Zoophilia as a lifestyle], and even when it is sourced, it selectively cites research that portrays the activity in a positive light. It is closely guarded by a group of ZETA activists (Zoophiles for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and any attempt to balance the article is met by summary blocking or banning. Three editors have already met this fate. (I am the last).
I have tried getting other conservative-minded people to help, but the whole thing is too revolting for them to tackle. How about it, Conservapedians? I could point out the areas of bias, and lack of neutrality, if it is not obvious. [[User:WilliamofOcham|WilliamofOcham]] 16:08, 29 December 2007 (EST)