767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 158:
Line 158: + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 18:38, April 5, 2007
, 18:38, April 5, 2007→More bias
:Authority currently fails to point at the law that's being broken. Andy just doesn't like sarcasm or off-hand remarks being used against him. The end. And I think the issue here is less a Wikipedia bias and more a political issue. It's not like Wikipedia arbitrarily chose to classify "Chinaman" as offensive. Can we at least agree on that? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:Authority currently fails to point at the law that's being broken. Andy just doesn't like sarcasm or off-hand remarks being used against him. The end. And I think the issue here is less a Wikipedia bias and more a political issue. It's not like Wikipedia arbitrarily chose to classify "Chinaman" as offensive. Can we at least agree on that? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia does not allow for the possibility that many Americans don't think Oriental or Chinaman are offensive. Wikipedia editted away evidence that supports the traditionalist point of view. Wikipedia portrays the liberal perception of these terms as if they were the only perceptions of this word. Thus this is an example of Wikipedia's liberal bias. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)