Changes

: Explanation for the second reversion: "credibility" is not the same as "scientific".  No one claimed that the "6 times more liberal" statement is "scientific".  But no one seriously disputes that Wikipedia is far more liberal than the American public.  The statement is credible, and it's false and misleading for Wikipedia to claim that newspapers criticized that statement for lack of credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:08, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: Explanation for the second reversion: "credibility" is not the same as "scientific".  No one claimed that the "6 times more liberal" statement is "scientific".  But no one seriously disputes that Wikipedia is far more liberal than the American public.  The statement is credible, and it's false and misleading for Wikipedia to claim that newspapers criticized that statement for lack of credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:08, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::Someone criticized the six-times number for lack of credibility, and not the general statement that Wikipedia is somewhat more liberal than the American public. Your own reversion now says "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility."  Do you deny that this refers explicitly to the six-times statistics?

::Someone criticized the six-times number for lack of credibility in the Star, and not the general statement that Wikipedia is somewhat more liberal than the American public. Your own reversion now says "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility."  Do you deny that this refers explicitly to the six-times statistics?

:: You told us that it was your were the source for all the criticism in The Star article, and not the journalist. It says "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." Did you tell the Star this or is this the journalist speaking? The article can be misunderstood on this point, so could you clarify this point.  [[User:Order|Order]] 09:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:: You told us that it was your were the source for all the criticism in The Star article, and not the journalist. It says "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." Did you tell the Star this or is this the journalist speaking? The article can be misunderstood on this point, so could you clarify this point.  [[User:Order|Order]] 09:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)