15. Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not take steps to reduce bias or provide balance. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of [[evolution]],<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias in the absence of affirmative steps to limit it. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources. | 15. Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not take steps to reduce bias or provide balance. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of [[evolution]],<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias in the absence of affirmative steps to limit it. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources. |