7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 732:
Line 732: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 18:40, February 23, 2008
, 18:40, February 23, 2008New section.
: It's particularly bizarre how the evolutionists insist on labeling as "creationist" anything they disagree with, even though (like the stickers) it is not creationism, as illustrated by the biased edits to that entry on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:40, 22 February 2008 (EST)
: It's particularly bizarre how the evolutionists insist on labeling as "creationist" anything they disagree with, even though (like the stickers) it is not creationism, as illustrated by the biased edits to that entry on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:40, 22 February 2008 (EST)
== Point-by-point analysis ==
So last night I went though each point on here, and I responded to some of them that I felt were either insufficient or just plain wrong. Here is my list (all numbers as of 10 pm on 2/22/08):
2. How is this bias?
3, 8, 18, 52, 54: merge; these are all the same point
4. How do we know this isn’t true?
5. Not mentioning every detail about someone is not bias, but the
overall point is good.
7. This is not bias just because a conservative said it.
9. Factually true, but how is it bias?
10. This has been fixed. Even if it was still there, this would be
more against Christians because they believe that it is immoral.
12. This has been fixed.
14. True, but it’s not bias to look at the worldwide view.
15. Fixed, and we do need a source to back it up.
17. Vandalism is not bias (although it is a problem).
19. Not really bias (although, again, it is a problem).
21. If there is a source saying this, then this is not bias.
23. This is not bias, although I see how it might be taken that way.
24. It is stated in the article that people find it improper.
27. Vandalism is not liberal at all. It’s usually someone being stupid.
29. It’s the same thing for conservative. The stated examples aren’t bias.
30. This has been fixed.
31. I agree that it’s kind of overboard, but they don’t “promote” it. Also, that is not bias.
32, 46: merge; same point
35. Not bias.
36. Not bias.
37. Not bias, and it had just been founded.
38. Perhaps they did not know about that paper. The other examples are good though.
39. How much they donate is irrelevant to what they believe in.
40. It does not prominently feature that.
43. There is bias, but it seems like it goes both ways.
44. “Citation needed” does not mean that it may not be true, just that they need a citation. And first you complain that they don’t have it, but then you complain that they do?
47. Not bias.
49. No, a worldwide view means exactly that: a worldwide view.
50: Not bias.
51. They say almost exactly the same thing on Wikipedia.
55. Not really bias.
56. It’s not bias to not mention every detail.
57. May I see the methods you used to gather those results?
59. At the bottom of every page, things like this are addressed.
62. It is true, though absurd.
64. This has been fixed.
65. I see many options besides atheist.
68. All of these have been fixed.
69. Not bias.
71. Neither of the claims are supported well, and being a worldwide encyclopedia means it can’t just be American.
74. Not bias.
75. Meanwhile the same page is locked here, forcing only one side of the issue on us.
77. Fixed, and how do we know that? Meanwhile the same article about Conservapedia was blocked here.
78. Not bias.
82. Not bias.
83. Not bias.
85. Not bias, and you even say it has been fixed.
86. Not gossip or bias.
87. Not gossip or bias.
89. Not bias.
92. To answer the question at the end: no.
94. Not bias.
95. Not bias.
96. Not bias.
97. Fixed.
98. True, but they definitely are in the minority, so they would want to self-identify more. It’s like saying people with hair have no category, but people with no hair do, so they're anti-hair.
99. Not really bias.
100. Source for second statement?
102. Not bias.
And sorry for the wall of writing, I can't make it a list like it should be, with bullet points. --[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 13:40, 23 February 2008 (EST)