28
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 640:
Line 640: − + Line 646:
Line 646: − + Line 652:
Line 652: − + Line 658:
Line 658: − + Line 666:
Line 666: − + Line 674:
Line 674: − + Line 680:
Line 680: − + Line 686:
Line 686: − + − 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 Another out of date citation?+ − 14 How can you distort and omit facts at the same time?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?+
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 18:00, March 17, 2007
, 18:00, March 17, 2007→My response
: 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.'
:: Well, based on your logic, real encyclopedias shouldnt have articles on 'Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.' [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 14:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
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.
:: 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.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 14:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
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).
:: What? Read the article on 'Italian Renaissance'. The article on 'Renaissance' refers to 'other historical and cultural moments' (straight from the opening paragraph).[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 14:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
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)
:: Are you serious? It's been disproven about ten times.
:: Are you serious? It's been disproven about ten times.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 14:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
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.
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.
: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.
:: 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.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 14:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
8.
8.
: 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)
:: Right. Because wikipedia is definitely completely anti-american, six times more liberal than America, and is planning to nuke the U.S.
:: Right. Because wikipedia is definitely completely anti-american, six times more liberal than America, and is planning to nuke the U.S.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 14:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
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?
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.
:: 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.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 14:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
11. There is no point of view. It states the opinions of others; it does not say 'JPandS is an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.'
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.
:: I'm moderate. And why does that matter???? Anyone can see that this list is completely biased.[[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 14:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
12 Out of date.
12 Out of date.
13 Using 'foreign' spellings is not bias.
14 The article on Benjamin Franklin says 'A few years later, Franklin repudiated his 1725 pamphlet as an embarrassing "erratum".' Another out of date citation?
15 How can you distort and omit facts at the same time? And if those are true, then that would be an error, not bias.
16 How is that gossip? A famous person becoming injured isnt gossip. Would you consider Dick Cheney shooting somebody with a shotgun gossip?
Ill stop here. Feel free to respond ><
Ill stop here. Feel free to respond ><