7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 714:
Line 714: + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 01:34, January 31, 2008
, 01:34, January 31, 2008no edit summary
:::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)
:::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)
::::Sure, you could do it this way. You could also use the random article feature and do a study on a thus obtained sample. Either way, it is definitely possible, and has been suggested for a long time. Apparently somebody has done this, given that Andy uses the outcomes of such a study, but it would be nice if he would provide a reference for the rest of us. We could then tell how the study was conducted, rather than guess. It would be easy to do it, but why do it, if it has already been done. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:14, 30 January 2008 (EST)
::::Sure, you could do it this way. You could also use the random article feature and do a study on a thus obtained sample. Either way, it is definitely possible, and has been suggested for a long time. Apparently somebody has done this, given that Andy uses the outcomes of such a study, but it would be nice if he would provide a reference for the rest of us. We could then tell how the study was conducted, rather than guess. It would be easy to do it, but why do it, if it has already been done. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:14, 30 January 2008 (EST)
::::::Agreed. Either one works for me; perhaps this wasn't the most direct route to a satisfactory..."inquiry" / "impeachment of Conservapedia axioms"...but I think that's a good course of action: Let's get some mad scientific method skills up in this slice. (Sorry). [[User:Repub236|Repub236]] 20:34, 30 January 2008 (EST)