1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 661:
Line 661: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 00:06, March 15, 2007
, 00:06, March 15, 2007→Liberal Wikipedians as compared to conservative Wikipedians
:::::: 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)
:::::: 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)
:::::: 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)
One must admit, it gives a bad impression to any visitor - and this is where many are going to be pointed. If nothing else, of the articles I've looked up, this one is the longest by far, clearly representing the most effort - to have it ''obviously inaccurate'' gives an even worse impression.
If twice as many Americans identify Conservative as opposed to Liberal, that's a 2:1 ratio. 1/3rd (33%) of Americans would therefore be Liberal. If thrice as many Wikipedians identify as Liberal, it's a 3:1 ratio. 3/4ths (75%) of Wikipedians would be liberal. This is fourth grade math.
It's actually therefore only 225% as Liberal by volume, just over '''twice''' as liberal. Nowhere ''near'' six times. All this aside from the unreliability of the Wikipedia "Poll". Frankly, to use these user tags is even less accurate than counting bumper stickers on your daily commute insofar as statistical accuracy is concerned. In fact, given the contention here that Wikipedia is, in fact, biased, doesn't it ''stand to reason'' that conservative editors would be less likely to make a point of their political leanings, to avoid the hypothetical consequences? This would skew the data even further. [[User:Sondergard|Sondergard]]
== How are we supposed to contribute? ==
== How are we supposed to contribute? ==