SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,592
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 55:
Line 55: +
→Cold Fusion.
:::::What's the "structural problem" here? I agree that Wikipedia has structural problems. However, this seems to be an accusation against a specific user, not a structural consideration at all. The issue mentioned could very likely be resolved using ordinary and simple processes. The argument against "Olympic sport" is not unreasonable, though I don't find the final conclusion obvious. I see no evidence that discussion was tried. Instead, revert warring. If you are going to revert war, you'd better have some support!
:::::What's the "structural problem" here? I agree that Wikipedia has structural problems. However, this seems to be an accusation against a specific user, not a structural consideration at all. The issue mentioned could very likely be resolved using ordinary and simple processes. The argument against "Olympic sport" is not unreasonable, though I don't find the final conclusion obvious. I see no evidence that discussion was tried. Instead, revert warring. If you are going to revert war, you'd better have some support!
:::::There is bias on Wikipedia. However, the issue I'd suggest you look at, for [[Bias in Wikipedia]], is whether or not that content about the Great Netball Problems is helping Conservapedia. Focusing on trivial errors or minor differences of opinion weakens the presentation of any serious concern there. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 19:40, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::There is bias on Wikipedia. However, the issue I'd suggest you look at, for [[Bias in Wikipedia]], is whether or not that content about the Great Netball Problems is helping Conservapedia. Focusing on trivial errors or minor differences of opinion weakens the presentation of any serious concern there. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 19:40, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::For me, the narcissism of editors and the kindergarden like "show and tell" aspect is the structural problem. There are experts who are selective about presenting facts and sources to build a true picture of a topic, and there are people who google a topic and then throw everything in at random just to show off what they could find. A second problem is that people with an axe to grind will go to great lengths to perpetrate a hoax or distortion in an article. Those are best illustrated by clear examples. For example, nobody seriously believes that John Seigenthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations. Nobody believes that Netball is being played "at the Olympics." Nobody believes that a group of African women standing next to a grass hut are playing netball. These are a lot easier to present than cold fusion or the causes of the current economic recession, where experts are still debating the topic. However, a large number of people have amassed over 300 examples of bias. I have gone through many of them and have removed only one as unfounded. Again, I appreciate your time on this matter. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:19, 12 August 2012 (EDT)
== the other place ==
== the other place ==