28
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 632:
Line 632: − + Line 639:
Line 639: + + + + + + Line 652:
Line 658: − + + + + + − 7.+ − + + + − + + + − 9. − 10 There is no point of view. It states the opinions of others; it does not say 'JPandS is an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.'+ + + − 11 'Out of date.'+ + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 17:59, March 17, 2007
, 17:59, March 17, 2007→My response
I'm just listing what I think of these.
I'm just listing what I think of these.
1 So? If you were a Jew, would you be offended for people not using the Hebrew calendar? And how does wikipedia not give credit to christianity<br>
1 So? If you were a Jew, would you be offended for people not using the Hebrew calendar? And how does wikipedia not give credit to christianity?
: If one is using the Christian dates, then give attribution to the meaning of those dates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
: If one is using the Christian dates, then give attribution to the meaning of those dates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
: Real encyclopedias don't have patently absurd entries just because some liberals believe in them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
: Real encyclopedias don't have patently absurd entries just because some liberals believe in them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Well, based on your logic, real encyclopedias shouldnt have articles on 'Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.'
3 Again, how is this bias? It says specifically that a small number of people believe this, and is cited well. And saying that 'no credible historian makes such a claim' is both false and biased.
3 Again, how is this bias? It says specifically that a small number of people believe this, and is cited well. And saying that 'no credible historian makes such a claim' is both false and biased.
: Small number of people believe this? Try zero credible historians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
: Small number of people believe this? Try zero credible historians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Does the article ever say that Jesus was mythological? NO. It says that a small number of scholars and authors believe this. Even if there are no credible historians that believe in a mythological Jesus, its not bias on Wikipedia's part.
4 There are alot of Renaissances. Look at wikipedia's article on 'Italian Renaissance'. Christianity is credited on that article.
4 There are alot of Renaissances. Look at wikipedia's article on 'Italian Renaissance'. Christianity is credited on that article.
: There is "The Renaissance," and it does deny credit to Christianity.
: There is "The Renaissance," and it does deny credit to Christianity.
:: What? Read the article on 'Italian Renaissance'. The article on 'Renaissance' refers to 'other historical and cultural moments' (straight from the opening paragraph).
5 Why is this still here? I think its been discussed on the talk page.
5 Why is this still here? I think its been discussed on the talk page.
:Because it's still true. It has been proven on the talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Because it's still true. It has been proven on the talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
6 How does it read 'like a brochure for the abortion industry'?
:: Are you serious? It's been disproven about ten times.
6. First of all, it doesnt even matter if they are more aetheistic. Second, that source is invalid; either that, or there are 2.5 million jedis living in this world.
7. How does it read 'like a brochure for the abortion industry'?
:By concealing the harms from abortion--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:By concealing the harms from abortion--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The section titled 'Health Effects' in Wikipedia's article on abortion is the size of Conservapedia's article on abortion. They do not conceal the potential harms.
8 Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias, does not include articles that are insignificant. Conservapedia only recently became famous; therefore, in response to publicity, the entry was created. It makes sense. And although wikipedia's article may include 'obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements', I could say the same for this article as well.
8.
9. Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias, does not include articles that are insignificant. Conservapedia only recently became famous; therefore, in response to publicity, the entry was created. It makes sense. And although wikipedia's article may include 'obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements', I could say the same for this article as well.
: You could say that, and your statement would be false.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
: You could say that, and your statement would be false.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
And even if it does have out-of-date citations, why are you using them in all of the 'Wikipedia later removed this error' examples?
:: Right. Because wikipedia is definitely completely anti-american, six times more liberal than America, and is planning to nuke the U.S.
10. And even if it does have out-of-date citations, why are you using them in all of the 'Wikipedia later removed this error' examples?
: To show the implicit admission by Wikipedia that the criticism is valid.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
: To show the implicit admission by Wikipedia that the criticism is valid.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:: So, you're basically gloating over finding one small example of bias that was later corrected? I think its better to knowingly correct yourself, rather than ignorantly stand by false beliefs. Such as, the belief that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than America.
11. There is no point of view. It states the opinions of others; it does not say 'JPandS is an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.'
: No point of view???? I'm wondering about your point of view. Before I go further, I'd like to hear you disclose your point of view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
: No point of view???? I'm wondering about your point of view. Before I go further, I'd like to hear you disclose your point of view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm moderate. And why does that matter???? Anyone can see that this list is completely biased.
12 Out of date.
12 Using 'foreign' spellings is not bias.
12 Using 'foreign' spellings is not bias.
13 The article on Benjamin Franklin says 'A few years later, Franklin repudiated his 1725 pamphlet as an embarrassing "erratum".' Another out of date citation?
13 The article on Benjamin Franklin says 'A few years later, Franklin repudiated his 1725 pamphlet as an embarrassing "erratum".' Another out of date citation?
14 How can you distort and omit facts at the same time? And if those are true, then that would be an error, not bias.
14 How can you distort and omit facts at the same time? And if those are true, then that would be an error, not bias.
15 How is that gossip? A famous person becoming injured isnt gossip. Would you consider Dick Cheney shooting somebody with a shotgun gossip?
15 How is that gossip? A famous person becoming injured isnt gossip. Would you consider Dick Cheney shooting somebody with a shotgun gossip?