767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 88:
Line 88: + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 15:50, April 5, 2007
, 15:50, April 5, 2007→Wrong bias.
We know that [[User:Aschlalfy]] doesn't want to count moderates. In his world view moderates don't count, even if they are the majority. He doesn't care that according to his math 997 moderates, 1 conservative and 2 liberals are as biased as 666 liberals, 333 conservatives and one moderate. Most of us would disagree. If Wikipedia's articles would be for 99.7 percent unbiased (moderate), we wouldn't have this discussion, nor would Conservapedia have a reason to exist. [[User:Order]] April 5, 14:25 (AEST)
We know that [[User:Aschlalfy]] doesn't want to count moderates. In his world view moderates don't count, even if they are the majority. He doesn't care that according to his math 997 moderates, 1 conservative and 2 liberals are as biased as 666 liberals, 333 conservatives and one moderate. Most of us would disagree. If Wikipedia's articles would be for 99.7 percent unbiased (moderate), we wouldn't have this discussion, nor would Conservapedia have a reason to exist. [[User:Order]] April 5, 14:25 (AEST)
==More bias==
Check out Chinaman, Oriental, and related topics on Wikipedia. They espouse the liberal notion that while Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Irishmen, Englishmen and Scotsmen are proper English, but Chinaman is a bad word? They edit away any attempts to challenge the notion that "Eurocentric" terms are okay. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)