13
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 94:
Line 94: + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 22:45, August 9, 2010
, 22:45, August 9, 2010→Why do they do it?
Let's turn this article into a table with two columns: next to each example should be the '''reason''' Wikipedia presents the information the way they do. For example, is it policy, or just the current editorial consensus? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:29, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
Let's turn this article into a table with two columns: next to each example should be the '''reason''' Wikipedia presents the information the way they do. For example, is it policy, or just the current editorial consensus? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:29, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
: As a fairly active Wikipedia editor myself, I can attest that I post only what I can back up with primary, non-editorialized sources. That being said, this isn't always the case for all Wikipedia users. Since the site is entirely user generated, there is a great deal of room for opinion to filter in. The fact is, any user generated site, this one especially included, is prone to the whims and biases of its users, and it is the job of other editors to call attention to these biases and ensure their verification. So, if anyone has a problem with liberal bias in Wikipedia, they can fix it by posting a well cited edit, which is, unfortunately, more than I can say for this site, which allows protected and edit-proof pages. [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 6:44 9 August 2010 (EST)
==Cassie Bernall==
==Cassie Bernall==