2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 700:
Line 700: +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 11:44, January 28, 2008
, 11:44, January 28, 2008→Reversion explained
:::Why are people still insisting that the "extrapolation and credibility" statement remain in the first place? Either change the tense to the past, or remove it completely. Wikipedia does not use those words, and hasn't for the past 4-5 months. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:45, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:::Why are people still insisting that the "extrapolation and credibility" statement remain in the first place? Either change the tense to the past, or remove it completely. Wikipedia does not use those words, and hasn't for the past 4-5 months. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:45, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::::The first half of the entry is outdated, and the second is plain incorrect. Anybody, who looks at either the Wikipedia article or the Star article will see that in a glance. They probably conclude that CP is sloppy about their entries, and not exactly trustworthy. The current entry should obviously change, since it outdated and wrong. If it is true that Andy is the source of the criticism in the article, and not the journalist, then the WP article is indeed giving the wrong impression. If the journalist is the source for the criticism then this entire item is somewhat pointless. Andy should get the benefit of the doubt when he claims that he was the source for the criticism, but given that he tries to change the subject, rather than answer it, feeds suspicions that he tries to duck this simple question, maybe because he wants to come back on his earlier statements that he was the source of the criticism. It becomes a bit dubious. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:44, 28 January 2008 (EST)