7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 709:
Line 709: + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 22:26, January 30, 2008
, 22:26, January 30, 2008no edit summary
: I wonder if your "percentages" analysis would apply to, say, the percentage of time that a president lies? No, I don't think a comment like, "he only lies 1% of the time" would be acceptable to anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:24, 30 January 2008 (EST)
: I wonder if your "percentages" analysis would apply to, say, the percentage of time that a president lies? No, I don't think a comment like, "he only lies 1% of the time" would be acceptable to anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:24, 30 January 2008 (EST)
::Are your numbers based on an analysis of a random sample of Wikipedia articles? It has been suggested that we should do this, rather than rely on anecdotal evidence. A reference that gives a bit more background information on these numbers would be very much appreciated. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)
::Are your numbers based on an analysis of a random sample of Wikipedia articles? It has been suggested that we should do this, rather than rely on anecdotal evidence. A reference that gives a bit more background information on these numbers would be very much appreciated. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:::Wikipedia ''does'' break down the articles into categories, which are aligned and categorized into various "projects". It would very easy to slice that baby open and count the rings. Sorry, anti-choicers; I meant baby in the ecstatic figurative way:) By the way, a President who only lies '''1%''' of the time? Let him out of the duffel bag and behind a podium!!! [[User:Repub236|Repub236]] 17:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)