1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 251:
Line 251: + + Line 369:
Line 371: +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 17:31, March 15, 2007
, 17:31, March 15, 2007→We need to decide what this list is: for all this debate, why is there no entry on bias?
::Horace makes a valid point. I thought about that "six times more liberal" ratio myself quite a bit, both before and after writing it. But what other number would make sense? Liberal by a 3:1 margin is many times more liberal than something that is conservative by a 2:1 margin. How many more times? Well, if the ratio went from 1:1 to 2:1 then we would say twice as many. When the ratio goes from 1:2 to 3:1 then six times as much seems appropriate. I welcome other suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Horace makes a valid point. I thought about that "six times more liberal" ratio myself quite a bit, both before and after writing it. But what other number would make sense? Liberal by a 3:1 margin is many times more liberal than something that is conservative by a 2:1 margin. How many more times? Well, if the ratio went from 1:1 to 2:1 then we would say twice as many. When the ratio goes from 1:2 to 3:1 then six times as much seems appropriate. I welcome other suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 2 March 2007 (EST)
:::Using ''no'' number would make sense. To write a statement like yours shows that you understand neither [[bias]] nor [[epidemiology|how to measure the occurrence of a condition in a population]]. [[User:Nooj|Nooj]] 13:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I suggest that you remove the sentence-- I don't think that 'degrees of liberal' can be expressed accruately with a ratio.
I suggest that you remove the sentence-- I don't think that 'degrees of liberal' can be expressed accruately with a ratio.
I trust my point has been made. That such a glaring logistical error appears on the article describing Conservapedia's catalyst is something I find rather amusing. Then again, perhaps Conservapedia's best chance of survival is targeting those who are less adept at following logic and/or reading comprehension.
I trust my point has been made. That such a glaring logistical error appears on the article describing Conservapedia's catalyst is something I find rather amusing. Then again, perhaps Conservapedia's best chance of survival is targeting those who are less adept at following logic and/or reading comprehension.
--[[User:Hopfrog|Hopfrog]] 19:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Hopfrog|Hopfrog]] 19:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
== Presence of an article about Conservapedia on Wikipedia. ==
== Presence of an article about Conservapedia on Wikipedia. ==
I don't know how much attention anyone here was paying attention to matters, but pursuant to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_25 this Deletion Review discussion] the article has been recreated since there are now many [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Reliable_sources|reliable sources]], and the article can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)
I don't know how much attention anyone here was paying attention to matters, but pursuant to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_25 this Deletion Review discussion] the article has been recreated since there are now many [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Reliable_sources|reliable sources]], and the article can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)