1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 361:
Line 361: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 23:52, March 14, 2007
, 23:52, March 14, 2007distilling the liberal ratio
This "six times more liberal" thing is comparing an anonymous poll to non-anonymous affiliations that people choose to put on their user pages, right? It could mean that liberals are just more enthusiastic about announcing their beliefs, or less certain of them when polled anonymously. The numbers can't be compared directly. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
This "six times more liberal" thing is comparing an anonymous poll to non-anonymous affiliations that people choose to put on their user pages, right? It could mean that liberals are just more enthusiastic about announcing their beliefs, or less certain of them when polled anonymously. The numbers can't be compared directly. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
While I appreciate the rigor in which this discussion page examines the underlying mathematics of the ratio, I think many have missed the underlying error in logic. Namely, you are comparing two entirely different things -- a group of people and a website. Therefore, you cannot somehow create a formula which attempts to quantify the latter. Some word substitutions will help illustrate my point:
''Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as '''"obese"''' compared with '''"thin,"''' and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as '''"thin"''' compared with '''"obese"'''. That suggests Wikipedia is '''six times thinner''' than the American public.''
''Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as '''"not likely to wear a hat"''' compared with '''"likely to wear a hat"''', and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as '''"likely to wear a hat"''' compared with '''"not partial to hats"'''. That suggests Wikipedia is six times more '''"likely to wear a hat"''' than the American public.''
I trust my point has been made. That such a glaring logistical error appears on the article describing Conservapedia's catalyst is something I find rather amusing. Then again, perhaps Conservapedia's best chance of survival is targeting those who are less adept at following logic and/or reading comprehension.
--[[User:Hopfrog|Hopfrog]] 19:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
== Presence of an article about Conservapedia on Wikipedia. ==
== Presence of an article about Conservapedia on Wikipedia. ==
I don't know how much attention anyone here was paying attention to matters, but pursuant to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_25 this Deletion Review discussion] the article has been recreated since there are now many [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Reliable_sources|reliable sources]], and the article can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)
I don't know how much attention anyone here was paying attention to matters, but pursuant to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_25 this Deletion Review discussion] the article has been recreated since there are now many [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Reliable_sources|reliable sources]], and the article can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)