1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 202:
Line 202: + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 03:22, November 7, 2009
, 03:22, November 7, 2009no edit summary
::::::Peter, you're in denial. You well know that the top of an article is the most important, and by far the most widely read. Your refusal to admit that results in a loss in credibility, and makes a discussion about bias with you pointless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::::::Peter, you're in denial. You well know that the top of an article is the most important, and by far the most widely read. Your refusal to admit that results in a loss in credibility, and makes a discussion about bias with you pointless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::::::::Sure, the top is most important, which is why I'd love to see a hand-pump or something similar as the first image. What's a true sign of denial, however, is your refusal to admit the images in the article completely overlook the majority of humanity. Unless you're able to shed your US/Eurocentrism, and deal with the real problems in the article in question, I see no point in discussing with you further. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:34, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::::::::Sure, the top is most important, which is why I'd love to see a hand-pump or something similar as the first image. What's a true sign of denial, however, is your refusal to admit the images in the article completely overlook the majority of humanity. Unless you're able to shed your US/Eurocentrism, and deal with the real problems in the article in question, I see no point in discussing with you further. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 11:34, 1 November 2009 (EST)
== Conservapedia Bias ==
To start things off, I would like to say that this will probably get deleted very, very quickly. Or at least as long as it take for an '''actual''' editor of Conservapedia to find it. Also, I have a more conservative point of view in politics. Anyways, on a real starting point, in the state of this website, it is somewhat of a laughing stock. (before i start ranting, i don't have an account on Wikipedia.)Somewhere in the blatant criticism of Wikipedia, it states that most citations are from (paraphrased) unreliable, biased sources. Although I cannot say that I have checked every source on here, I find it safe to assume that '''|any|''' source that showcases the viewpoint of this website is ridiculously biased. Second..actually, I don't really know where to go from there. I can't really find anything right with this sad, sad place that is taking up my computer screen. As in it's so funny it's sad. For example of this type of saddening humor, see the video of Iraqi soldiers trying to do jumping jacks (the one I am referring to will be obvious when found). To conclude, watch/read (the extremely liberally biased piece of garbage that is)Twelve Angry Men. It goes over bias. To somewhat steal a quote from it, this website definitely has a monopoly on the truth. '''Also, I'm 14. No doubt I've been corrupted by dirty liberals.'''