88
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 539:
Line 539: +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 16:08, April 2, 2007
, 16:08, April 2, 2007→Sex and wikipedia
:: The sex-related entries rank higher than that on the most recently available data. Point #3 has been updated to reflect your comments, though I note that nothing was "explicitly wrong" about its earlier version. The way that Wikipedia reports this data is not where wiki users would expect to see it, and the Wikipedia reports may be less accurate and timely than the reports on Conservapedia. An entry on John Gotti or an obscure "George Washington" (not the president) ranking so high? Seems implausible, making me wonder if the file is editing as a joke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:: The sex-related entries rank higher than that on the most recently available data. Point #3 has been updated to reflect your comments, though I note that nothing was "explicitly wrong" about its earlier version. The way that Wikipedia reports this data is not where wiki users would expect to see it, and the Wikipedia reports may be less accurate and timely than the reports on Conservapedia. An entry on John Gotti or an obscure "George Washington" (not the president) ranking so high? Seems implausible, making me wonder if the file is editing as a joke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Not that it matters to this crowd --as this article as it seems focused on mostly silly attacks on wikipedia that reveal more about conservapedian ignorance on wikipedia's processes and technologies rather than what could be a valid and credible critique of WP-- as far as the non-president "George Washington" goes. The article was a featured article on the front page last week, thus accounting for it's ranking. He invented instant coffee among other things. BTW before someone rails against it being a featured article; they pick one a day, so relatively obscure ones do show up --part of what makes wikipedia cool to the broadly curious as well as a subject of ridicule to the narrow and incurious. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 12:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: Also, I believe Special:Popularpages has been removed from newer versions of MediaWiki for development reasons, and when Conservapedia upgrades to a newer version of MediaWiki, Special:Popularpages will no longer be available here either. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TopTenPages] --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: Also, I believe Special:Popularpages has been removed from newer versions of MediaWiki for development reasons, and when Conservapedia upgrades to a newer version of MediaWiki, Special:Popularpages will no longer be available here either. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TopTenPages] --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)