nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
902
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 466:
Line 466: + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 01:05, January 11, 2008
, 01:05, January 11, 2008→Example number 14: suggestion?
:: The references don't support Wikipedia's claim. To the contrary, the references tend to support Conservapedia's claim yet Wikipedia claims otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:: The references don't support Wikipedia's claim. To the contrary, the references tend to support Conservapedia's claim yet Wikipedia claims otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::The Star said "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation.". I can see why people call that criticism because of poor extrapolation. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::The Star said "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation.". I can see why people call that criticism because of poor extrapolation. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Perhaps, something along the lines of:
<blockquote> But of the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility", only one briefly mentions extrapolation or credibility, and both instead tend to confirm the liberal bias on Wikipedia.</blockquote>
...? Well, in any case, I'll point out the small spelling error that needs to be fixed as well (to -> two). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:05, 10 January 2008 (EST)