Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Downright Untruth

Most conservatives would probably consider me a liberal. Truth be told, I'm probably more of a moderate libertarian, but from what I've seen here, you'd all probably consider me a liberal. In any case--

This cite claims that wikipedia won't use the word terrorist. I'm not going to waste my time quoting the Hamas article on wikipedia. Look it up yourself. It uses the word terrorist. Well heck, five seconds into reading conservapedia and you've already lost all credibility in my eyes. Good luck with being delusional.

OK, I called your bluff. I looked up Hamas and found, just as the content page says here, Wikipedia does not assign the label "terrorist" but merely cites other groups that use that term. The content page here is correct.--Aschlafly 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
"Terrorist" is opinion. WIkipedia in this case is avoiding opinion, but is citing facts about opinion. That's an example of neutrality, not bias. Dpbsmith 06:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
You forget one thing. This is conservapedia. A highly biased site for extremly conservatives and fundamental christs. Everything that is not fundamental christly or conservative is biased in their opinion. Democracy is called Mobocracy (hope I spelled this word right), NPOV is bias and bias (as long as it is towards conservatism or christianity) is true and neutral. And the most important argument (besides the bible) is the stupidity of Americans. For example when saying "xx% of Americans believe that ..." --Itsjustme 06:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
"Terrorist" is a loaded word. Hamas would probably tell you they are freedom fighters. Also, they are the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. Wikipedia is handling the nature of the organization in an neutral way, by telling you who actually calls them terrorists. --Transfinite 21:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I must agree in this regard; even though many terrorists are indeed terrorists (deliberately targeting innocents to forward a radical worldview), they obviously don't consider themselves "terrorists". --Hojimachongtalk 22:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
See there's a conspiracy theory beneath all this. Supposedly Wikipedia is baiting in real terrorists by creating a comforatble, friendly editing environment. Then, unbeknownst to the alleged freedom fighter, he is profiled, stalked, identified, outed, harrassed, arrested, detained, sent to Gitmo, interogated, tortured, and finally joins a class action suit. Actually something like this already happened. Terrorists really did in fact take over Stephen Schwartz's page and Schwartz threatened legal action against Wikipedia. The uncensored page is at Wikitruth. [1] And there may be lawsuit right now ongoing in Germany over that whole matter. RobS 00:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

P.S. If Wikipedia is so terrible, why do you use their format? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, my friends.

Conservapedia's format is from "Wikimedia", which is an open source program used for any wiki. Wikipedia didn't come up with it either.
Maybe you should check your sources on that. Quoting the MediaWiki homepage:
MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia. It is now used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this very website, the home of MediaWiki.
Just pointing it out... --Sid 3050 18:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
"originally written for Wikipedia" is not very persuasive. We have many editors here (including myself) who originally wrote entries for Wikipedia too. That doesn't mean Wikipedia can take claim for our work.--Aschlafly 18:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh Gott, lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen. *facepalms* First of all, "writing entries for Wikipedia" does NOT equal "developing MediaWiki". This is about the software this site uses and how "Wikipedia didn't come up with it". You know? MediaWiki? A WikiMedia project? Like, a project of the foundation Jimmy Wales co-founded?
  • "In July 2002, a major rewrite of the software powering Wikipedia went live; dubbed "Phase III", it replaced the older "Phase II" version, and became MediaWiki."[2]
  • "MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia."[3]
  • "Originally developed to serve the needs of the free content Wikipedia encyclopedia"[4]
  • "Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia project, that initiated the development of the MediaWikiSoftware."[5]
So please tell me how this is not very persuasive. --Sid 3050 19:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Please, let's distinguish between the content (the text of the articles, etc.), the medium (the Wiki software), and the "skin" (the visual look and design which is a part of the Wiki software, implemented as a CSS "style sheet," but easily changed.
MediaWIki is open source software, licensed under a free license. Anyone can use it, including Conservapedia. Using it the way Conservapedia does is perfectly OK, the WikiMedia foundation encourages it, it's a big win-win.
The MediaWIki development project is so very very closely associated with Wikipedia that it's extremely close to untrue to say "Wikipedia didn't come up with it." MediaWiki is more closely associated with Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales is.
The "look" of Wikipedia, the skin as it's called, is very definitely a part of MediaWiki. It is called the "monobook" skin. Wikipedia used to have a very plain "1995-ish" look, and developing the new look was a big part of the revisions that went into MediaWiki 3.0.
Conservapedia used to use the Monobook skin absolutely unchanged, which gave it a look that was so similar to Wikipedia as to be downright confusing. Recent tweaks and the addition of the logo have now made it visually distinct.
While it is correct to say that Conservapedia doesn't use content from Wikipedia (by the way:
it is absolutely CHURLISH not to acknowledge that "Wikipedia" or more strictly the Wikimedia Foundation has not made Conservapedia (and most other WIki-based sites) a great and generous gift in the form of the Mediawiki software.
Fair is fair. Dpbsmith 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
In response to Sid above, does he know why Fortran was written? Why UNIX was written? Why C was written? I doubt Sid expects everyone to credit the motivation of those projects when using those tools.--Aschlafly 00:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

CE is not an example of bias

I fail to see why CE should be listed as an example of bias. Why should it be maintained that using the term "common era" is to deny the dating system is based on the birth of Christ? It is merely a recognition that many people object to using a phrase meaning "year of our lord", when quite obviously they do not wish to recognize Jesus Christ as their lord. I don't see any denials at all, just pragmatism.

Further to the above point, this site fails to establish a link between Jesus and God. I do not dispute that a person such as Jesus exists, but the actual date of his birth is an estimate. If you do your calendar research, you will know that nobody started tick marks on a wall the day he was allegedly born. However, there is no definitive evidence on the existence of God, and thus there can be no proof of a link to Jesus. CE is an attempt at an international standard, and is an attempt to eliminate bias. BC and AD are a bias in favour of Christianity/Catholicism. QED.

Having though about the subject a little further, it occurs to me that since the stated aim of Conservapedia is to avoid all forms of bias, wouldn't it be better to switch to a less controversial dating system yourselves? I'd suggest the widely recognised and implemented Unix Epoch, 1st January 1970. --Abrown 00:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


Actually, if the person responsible for the entry on Wikipedia's liberal bias on Anti-racist mathematics knew anything about sociological theory, they would understand that education in general is biased in favour of the white middle to upper class. It has to do with the language used in the home versus in school. The language used in a lower class household, and the frame of reference for the students is vastly different than the upper class. However, the Wikipedia article does not do an effective job of explaining the overall concept. For instance, an inner-city youth might do better if word problems reflected situations more relevant to their station in life, rather than an upper class youth. (Example to follow in the next 24 hours, I just have to find it). --TrueGrit 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


1) I just want someone to give me the exact reason why using British words instead of American is so bad. Why exactly do we have the implication that America and the American way of doing things are so 'Superior'? There are plenty of examples of American editors on Wiki doing the wrong thing - take for example the history of the article 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. It's one of the bets books written in America, and kids kept replacing it with rubbish, using an IP address that led - ta-dah! - to a School in Washington. Is the American way of doing things so Superior when the Kids who live in its Capital have no respect for Literature, or even the process of learning?

2) Example number 6 is facutally incorrect. You multiplied the number of people who consider themselves Conservative against the number of Wikipedians considering themselves Liberal, creating the statistic for the number of Wikipedians and Americans who cosndier themselves Conservative and Liberal.

3) Why do Statistics, one of the most unreliable and inaccurate mediums for recording factual information, feature so prominently in a website dedicated to 'The Truth'?

4) How exactly do you define credibility for a Historian? All of the ones listed on Wiki have received Qualifications and written previous books.

5) Why shouldn't Wiki use 'BC'? It's offensive and inaccurate to people of other faiths to measure time by someone else's. Christians may or may not be the Majority, but whether they are doesn't affect decisions made about the Majority along with everyone else.

6) There is no controlling a Bias for 'Gossip' when anyone is allowed to edit the Encyclopedia.

Please could someone respodn to as many fo these as they can on my talk page? Thanks. TheJesus 08:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative does not = Christian

Scanning over this list, indeed the site in general, there is a notion that the terms Conservative and Christian are interchangeable. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. Conjoining the terms completely disregards members of all other religions (or lack thereof). Such exclusion is blatantly un-American, and unworthy of a educative resource.

"American spelling"?!? Habsburg, for example, is not subject to interpretation as it is a family name. "Hapsburg" came about as an alternate spelling due to the native pronunciation, and the resultant usage of the alternate is just as appalling as Ellis Island workers assigning new names to immigrants whose names they could not pronounce.

Quite a few of the items on this list pertain to individual articles on Wikipedia, and content within them that is disagreeable to certain people. This does not justify a wholesale disregard of Wikipedia as biased, "liberal", etc...

it is a little confusing but this site mixes editorials, articles, lectures, and editorials. This page seems to be the former: editorial. It would be helpful in as much as this is not likely to change if there werre some indicator as to what kind of page each one is. Also the policies are pretty much ad hoc and applied according to the whim of individual admins, so there are obvious inconsistences. Finally you should realize that this site has a conservative bias and thus no attemp at objectivity is made. In fact the founders seem, oddly enough, to buy into the kind of moral relativism usually confined to post modernist zealots . . . the difference being that the relativism is based on a narrow view of christianity and conservatism and the kind of rabid patriotism that made freedom fries seem like a rational idea. Basically this is the founder's blog or at least you should treat it as so. 18:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Paged Locked

Can't fix this up, but Conservapedia should be replaced with Conservapedia. Mathmo 09:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Israel News Agency

Example #2 [6] uses a link to Israel News Agency, however recently when I tried to link to that same source

it was blocked by a spam filter. Can anybody explain this or help out? There is also a third article which may be useful. RobS 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

RobS, that baffled me also. I'll copy and post this on my talk page to see if our gurus know why.--Aschlafly 23:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Just going to the top level domain, trying "search" with "Passover" yielded no results other than adverts. --Crackertalk 23:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I had to delete the link in order to update the page. I can't explain that obstacle, but we can't remain frozen because of it.--Aschlafly 00:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

#26 - (lack of) math proofs

"Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an elementary proof until this omission was pointed out here.[35] Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia."

Browsing through, I see a large number of advanced number theory topics that fail to have the elementary proofs with them. If this is to be a criticism of wikipedia, it would be best to start with the basics proofs here and work up to the more complex areas of group and set theory. Alternatively, this criticism could be removed. --Mtur 21:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The criticism is clear: Wikipedia failed to recognize the important concept of the elementary proof, until Conservapedia highlighted this bias here. That's the criticism.--Aschlafly 23:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Bias against... elementary proofs, right?--LutherBifteck 00:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
So? There are hundreds of thousands of articles that Conservapedia needs. For example, you dont have an article on Morocco. CONSERVAPEDIA IS RACIST AGAINST MOROCCANS!
The issue that I have is that there are a number of higher math descriptions and proofs here without the documentation for the basics upon which they rest. --Mtur 13:31, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't think any of this is meant to actually apply to Conservapedia. God's chosen can do no wrong, after all. IMFromKathlene 14:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Polls to Assess Bias.

'Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal"'.
'About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.'
'Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public.'
'Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American.'
'even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,[33] Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.'

All very true. However, it's rather weird then to go on to quote - apparently as a further attack on Wikipedia - the fact that

One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth - whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to - is not democratically determined.

Since, as Conservapedia acknowledges here, truth is not democratically determined, how is it relevant what percentage of Americans believe in evolution or Noah's Ark?

Polls are obviously relevant to assessments of neutrality or bias. Also, polls are obviously relevant to rebut a claim of "widely accepted" or "prevailing view." --Aschlafly 06:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

This page makes Conservapedia look BAD

I agree that the "BCE/CE" part should be omitted. NOT allowing users to use EITHER of them would be an example of bias. But there are deeper problems with this page. For one, this page is outdated and now inaccurate. "Great Flood" redirects the user to a disambiguation page which includes "Noah's Flood," not to Deluge (mythology). This is unforgivable in a website that so harshly criticizes another website for perceived factual innacuracies.

Also, conservapedia is missing FAR more articles than wikipedia. Admonishing wikipedia for not having an article on certain esoteric subjects is highly hypocritical of a website that doesn't even have an article on the human liver.

Criticizing wikipedia for an occasional unscholarly tone is equally hypocritical. How about this quote from Conservapedia? "Rush Limbaugh is one the greatest men alive in the US of A (God Bless it and peace be upon it). A man with a visionary ability to see Truth through the fog of the Liberal Agenda, I personally pray for Him every night. I wish he would run for President."

//UPDATE: The article I quoted was recently and thankfully deleted.

This page also misrepresents statistical data. According to the study which forms the basis of the claim that most Americans reject evolution ( ), most Americans actually believe evolution exists. 40% believe in evolution with the presence of God, and 9% believe in evolution without God. That's a total of 2% more than the 47% who don't believe in evolution.

Finally, I would abstain from criticizing individual wikipedia articles. Anyone who reads this article will compare the articles mentioned to their conservapedia counterparts. Not to be overly negative, but for the most part I think it's fair to say the wikipedia articles are vastly superior and more exhaustive. If you disagree, look up "Johnny Appleseed."

I would personally love to see this page deleted. It's probably apparent I'm not a conservative, but I hate to see websites making themselves look bad, and this page makes conservapedia look like a hypocritical bully.--Mechrobioticon 18:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Please see my blog entry on this article, although I'm sure it will be disregarded because it's hosted by evil Google. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 14:19, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Number 2

How is this bias? I found the source used for 'half the 9th graders lacked proficiency etc etc', and it pretty much supports what Wikipedia said. (

The SFGate article does say that 47% of 9th graders showed proficiency on the english test; however, it also says that it improved 39% from the year before in the next sentence. Good job being 'neutral to the facts.'

The improvement was probably not due to anything the school did, if you analyze the facts carefully.
Yes, the opinion of liberal journalists are similar to the opinions of liberal Wikipedia editors. The problem is that the facts set forth in the article do not support the Wikipedia entry, and were omitted from it entirely. Oh, those bothersome facts!--Aschlafly 19:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
47%! That is pathetic. Any school that has a literary proficiency rate of less than 80% is failing to teach its students how to read. Why then, does Wikipedia praise this school for its "nuturing environment" and "academic innovation"?

And, as far as I can see, the article is a good article; its well-cited, informative, and unbiased.NickJ10 08:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere does the wiki article mention a sex-based health clinic.
The simple fact is it describes a health clinic which, amongst other things, also deals with family planning and sexually transmitted disease issues, the clinic also freely distributes condoms to students. I know conservatives don't like sex but making out that a clinic dealing in such issues is some how sex-based is opinion not fact. Wikipedia editors apparently like that. No, they described what had been done. If I describe the fact that had rained outside does that mean I apparently like rain?
This site is surely some kind of April Fools joke ok?
WhatIsG0ing0n 09:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Wrong on your first and last points. The "health" clinic is a "sex-based" clininc. It's not screening for real health problems, such as diabetes or obesity.--Aschlafly 19:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
And actually, according to that same source, the state-wide average is 43%, while Balboa had 47%. Meaning that the whole point doesnt mean anything now. And you can't say that the school did nothing; the school increased AP and Honors classes, better teachers, stronger leadership, and used data to determine student needs (straight from the source). I also think that you're just assuming that its a sex-based clinic (give me a source). NickJ10 21:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
The school increased its Asian enrollment by 50%. Studies show that Asians do better on tests. That increase in enrollment accounts for the increase in test scores. There is no evidence that the school deserves any credit.
I didn't say the health clinic was exclusively sex-based. But a significant part of its efforts is, including contraception distribution. That's what health clinics typically are for teenagers in public school, only a small percentage of whom have real health problems.--Aschlafly 02:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Example 3

Example 3 says "No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda . . .described as terror organizations by Wikipedia."

That might have been true at the time this article was written, but it doesn't seem to be now. If you look up Al-Qaeda on Wikipedia, it now says;

"Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international alliance of militant Sunni Islamist terrorist organizations established in 1988 by Osama bin Laden.", and again "The origins of the terrorist group can be traced..." So, I think for now, Al-Qaeda needs to be taken off the list in point 3.--Epicurius 10:44, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No, no, no. It will stay forever, but Andy will add his trademarked "It has only been corrected after Conservapedia pointed out this obvious flaw." to make Conservapedia once again look like the center of the universe. --Sid 3050 11:27, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia will use the euphemism "militant" instead of "terrorist", as Epicurius's example above shows. The second reference to "terrorist" is contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV and I expect it may be replaced. Epicurius reinforces the criticism of bias.--Aschlafly 13:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, in the case above, they use both "militant" and "terrorist" to describe Al Qaeda, so, that's at least a baby step when it comes to calling terrorists terrorists. I guess we'll have to keep watching it to see what gets removed and what stays.--Epicurius 16:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
The "militant" reference complies with Wikipedia policy; the "terrorist" reference does not. If and when someone complains to Wikipedia admins, I would expect the "terrorist" adjective to be replaced with "militant".--Aschlafly 19:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
And Conservapedia using Wikipedia permalinks isn't at all hypocritical, is it? Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 14:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Don't follow you here. Please be specific. We generally not accept Wikipedia as an authoratitive resource, if that's what you mean. Attempts to do so here, if any, should probably be corrected.--Aschlafly 19:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Sex and wikipedia

"Statistics" and "Popular pages" are standard features in the wiki software used by Wikipedia and Conservapedia. But Wikipedia conceals this information from the public.[4] Why is Wikipedia hiding its data on its popular pages? Wikipedia used to be hosted by a company profiting from pornography.[5] Is Wikipedia traffic increased by its sex-related entries? Are minors, who are heavy users of Wikipedia, attracted to those entries?

Seriously, the nonencyclopedic entries in this article are getting a little ridiculous. If the asking of unanswerable questions doesn't qualify as "gossip" then I don't know what does. Myk 02:11, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Good comment. The "point 3" has been revised so that it does not ask any questions now.--Aschlafly 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Regarding the factual points only: Special:Statistics is very much available on Wikipedia, that part is explicitly wrong. And while it's true that the per-article statistics have been disabled on Wikipedia proper for a while, the data is currently available here, allowing one to draw their own conclusions about the extent to which Wikipedia is seeking traffic with its sex-related entries. (Sex is #13 most popular, followed by other sex-related entries currently at #36, #41, #42, #54, #70, and #94).
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.--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. Godman 12:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for updating the entry to be much more reasonable. The criticisms currently presented are closer to things that are acknowledged/agreed by Wikipedia, so #3 is much more accurate (eg. offensive information isn't removed if the only objection is that it's offensive, and that no extra disclaimers will be given other than the "Disclaimers" link at the bottom of every page on Wikipedia).
Regarding the details of the statistics, note that unlike the stats here, Wikipedia's stats are what's most currently popular, not what's been popular in the past... so they're driven by the whims of current surfers. They're almost always driven by some current event (eg. the "300" movie was very near the top on opening weekend), or an inbound link (eg. social sites like can a huge amount of traffic to a page for no immediately obvious reason). --Interiot 12:51, 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. [7] --Interiot 02:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
We've upgraded recently and still have the entries.--Aschlafly 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Good thing this is not a mainpage "item of interest" accusing Wikipedia of attracting young children to the site with sexual conduct and then trying to hide the fact! oh wait but it is and it does! --Cgday 05:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sarcasm doesn't working well in encyclopedias. Please make legitimate comments or refrain. Thank you.--Aschlafly 10:37, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
please stop calling this site an encyclopedia. It's a group blog written by radical HS students (with delusions of grandeur) that happens to use wiki software. Godman 12:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
even after editing how is 3 an example of bias? it's an example of user usage which is an entirely different thing. --Cgday 12:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I thoroughly agree. I've already said this, although it seems to have been censored. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 13:03, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I find it personally offensive that you use the word "Sex" in the #3 item on the list. Impressionable youngsters could read that word and then go out and do orgies and the drugs. Also, you link to Wikipedia in the item, which is known to be a repository of pornography and depravity. How dare you damage our nations youth in such a way? For shame.

On an entirely serious note, the article will inevitably have the effect of leading readers to sex-related wikipedia articles, as it did me. I use wikipedia nearly daily and I've never seen any of that content, likely never would have, until conservapedia pointed it out to me. BTW, I'm not thankful. I'd rather avoid that kind of stuff as much as possible, I can't miss the irony that editors here are so proactively inviting their readers to look at that stuff . . . what gives? Godman 13:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
"What gives" indeed. Mr. "Godman", I've reviewed your edits and found them to be deficient. A gossipy attack on Pat Robertson by someone who calls himself "Godman" and describes himself as a Christian??? Please.--Aschlafly 14:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Agreed. It had the same "GO FIND SEX STUFF AT THIS LOCATION" effect on me. I didn't even know there's a "List of sex positions" or a "List of female porn stars by decade" on Wikipedia, but now I've seen them. Great job at not guiding people to potentially non-family-friendly material, Andy. --Sid 3050 14:04, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Sid, I think that's the first conservative edit you've made! Are you really changing your views? Have you complained to Wikipedia about its obscenity yet? Please let us know when you do.--Aschlafly 14:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
*laughs* No, let me make my point a bit clearer, I see now how it might have been misleading. My comment focused on the fact that the oh-so-family-friendly Conservapedia basically says "Go find sex stuff there!".
I (personally) have no issue with that. Really. I've read (and occasionally written) about many things you'd NEVER allow on Conservapedia, and it hasn't made me go "MY EYES! THEY BLEED!" - and in many cases, I've read about it on Wikipedia.
The reason is this: If somebody mentioned Goatse or the various forms of genital piercings to you, and you (for some reason) became curious - where would you go to look it up? Google Image Search? (In case that the answer is not clear: DON'T.).
In the vast expanses of the Internet, Wikipedia is (as far as I can see) the lesser evil. Looking up Goatse on Google Image Search (with the default setting for SafeSearch) gives you... results. Not the actual Goatse, but at least one result on page one that made even me go " that even anatomically possible?". Looking it up on Wikipedia gives me a description that tells me what Goatse is. I agree that Wikipedia not perfect, but when I want to look up things that I guess will be rated a certain way, I go to Wikipedia before trying random Google results.
That's why I don't get the policy here. By not saying anything on Conservapedia, you send people elsewhere. Some will go to Wikipedia, others will try Google.
Let's see... after reading Homosexuality, I'd like to know more about anal sex (which is mentioned in the former article). Whoops, no luck on Conservapedia. Let's try Google. The top three results are: Wikipedia's entry, " - Anal Sex" (description: "Anal Sex- The best and worst parts about lovemaking from behind.") and "Anal Sex Porn Links < PenisBot" (description: "Quality Anal Sex porn links, Anal Sex pictures, videos and stories."). Hmmmmmmmmm... yes, that's much better than a stub here about what anal sex is all about.
Conservapedia is a filter. I think we can agree on that. You don't want your visitors to be exposed to certain things. That's why I think that it's strategically dumb to link people to a place on Wikipedia from which they can easily access things you don't want them to be exposed to. It's like saying "Hey, don't think about [insert gross mental image here]!" - it will have the opposite result. And if you want your filter (and thus, your encyclopedia) to be complete (meaning that people don't leave your site to look things up), you should include those things here - in an environment in which you have control over what they see. If you say "I won't tell you about this", people will look for the information elsewhere. They won't say "Oh, Mr. Schlafly doesn't want me to learn anything about this, so I'll just stay here and forget about it". --Sid 3050 14:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I sorta hope for humor's sake someone goes to look up goatse. But on a serious note, I'll agree with Sid's points. By mentioning that wikipedia has such content, pandora's box was opened and now curious people will go look for the info. You have much more control over what people can learn/read if you hold the information here, what they'll learn elsewhere is unknown. Jrssr5 14:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
More generally, the above two comments by people who I assume are liberals are enlightening. They use conservative arguments to oppose exposing a liberal project!--Aschlafly 14:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Like I said above: I don't have anything against that stuff myself (I find most of it enlightening and/or entertaining) - I just find it hilarious that you point at it with a giant arrow that reads "SEX STUFF HERE". --Sid 3050 14:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
"Aschlafly," I'm not certain what your point in attacking my edits (as well as my motives and my faith) was other than a sort of deflection from the point at hand. I can only assume you're not prepared to discuss the topic of ocnservapedia promoting sexual content reasonably. I wonder, however, if you might benefit more by examining your own actions and edits here rather than questioning my faith. I've made no secret that I don't beleive you can be properly labeled a conservative in any meaningful sense, but rather a radical. I'm fairly certain given your rabid defense of your own views you're not able to understand why I might think that. Be that as it may I've stated my opinion. Feel free to ignore it as is your habit to ignore anything that doesn't fit well into your narrow radical view. Have a pleasant day and good luck with this blog. Godman 15:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, you seem to dodge legitimate responses and complaints alot. For example, your response to responses to point 5 in the archives. Also, your last 3 comments didn't actually defend your 'example of bias', but instead, attacked the person disagreeing with your point. (the 1st one attacked Godman's faith and edits, the 2nd one used sarcasm, which you seemed to abhor in a comment above that, and the most recent one called them liberals, (as if that were an insult) while completely ignoring their points. NickJ10 18:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
NickJ10, I'm going to archive this page. I do respond to sincere comments and criticisms. If you have one, then I'd be happy to respond. If you respond before I archive this page, then I'll keep your question, if it's sincere. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Deletion of article about a Christian missionary

several months ago wikipedia deleted an article I created about the famous Christian missionary, author, and hymn writer, J. Edwin Orr. Their reason, "non notable" despite a google search yielding over 12,000 results. Wikipedia has articles about far less notable people in secular positions some of whom have google search results of less than 900 --TedM 22:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

That's a great example. I'll include it. Thanks.--Aschlafly 22:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
1) Aschlafly, without looking it up, can you name any hymns written by J. Edwin Orr?
2) Wouldn't it be more appropriate to wait for Conservapedia to have an article about J. Edwin Orr before criticizing Wikipedia for not having one?
3) Wikipedia's criteria for notability of people, WP:BIO is not based on the number of Google hits. I'd like TedM to point me to the relevant deletion discussion and indicate how J. Edwin Orr meets WP:BIO. Really, by far the most important criterion is the availability of good sources. If J. Edwin Orr meets the criteria in WP:BIO, and if the article when created cited sources and indicated why Orr is notable, it should not have been deleted and I'd be glad to propose it for deletion review. Dpbsmith 05:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. I know of one, although the name is not coming to me at the moment.
  2. Not necessarily. The criticism is not that Wikipedia doesn't have such an article, but that they deleted one. Conservapedia has not deleted or refused to have one on Orr, so the same criticism doesn't apply. For what it's worth, I'd definitely agree that Orr is worthy of an article.
  3. I've just looked for the deletion discussion, and there wouldn't have been one, because it was listed for speedy deletion, in which no such discussion takes place. I understand what you are getting at, that Wikipedia deleted it simply because it didn't meet its criteria. I guess the other side of the coin is (1) that the liberal leanings of a disproportionate number of Wikipedia editors meant that few had any personal idea of how notable he was, to either allow time for notability to be demonstrated, or for others to help with meeting the requirements, and (2) Wikipedia's insistence on reliable sources tends to exclude people who are "notable" (in reality, not necessarily in Wikipedia's definition), but who have not had much written about them in mainstream ("reliable") sources.
Philip J. Rayment 06:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
It looks like an understandable event to me. The content of the WIkipedia article was as follows:
James Edwin Orr was a Baptist minister and author.
He was born in Belfast on January 12 1912 and died in Ridgecrest, North Carolina on April 12 1987
He was the author of several books and also wrote numerous hymns
It was not deleted because of lack of notability, but because it failed to assert notability, i.e. did not give reasons why Orr meets the WP:BIO criteria. The article was marked with a notice saying "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with this page’s proposed speedy deletion, please add: {{hangon}}."
However, User:Ted-m didn't take any of these actions.
The final deletion was made because Ted-m replaced the content of the article with the text #REDIRECT [[J Edwin Orr]] apparently under the impression that this was the same as moving the article, but it isn't. The result was to create a redirect to a nonexistent page--J Edwin Orr was never created. Redirects to nonexistent pages are legitimate "speedy deletions."
If the article had, say: given the titles of Orr's books; and mentioned a single source, such as a print biography, for the facts in the article; or quoted a reasonable published source giving the title of one of Orr's hymns and a comment about its being familiar or beloved or anything like that, I don't think it would have been deleted.
This wasn't a case of anti-Christian bias, It was a case of someone borderline-notable, probably notable enough for a Wikipedia article, whose article was deleted because the contributor didn't create a very good article and apparently didn't take any actions to defend it other than just blindly recreating the same very short article. Dpbsmith 06:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Hey, that's not fair! Being able to see what the deleted article had gives you the advantage over me. :-)
Seriously, I think that my comments about the liberal leanings of Wikipedia editors is still correct (and I disagree that Orr is "borderline-notable", in reality). But I also concede that this is not a good example to criticise Wikipedia over.
Philip J. Rayment 06:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm about to leave a note on TedM's talk page... please follow me there. Dpbsmith 06:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Everyone, stop trying to convince the christians they aren't actually being persecuted. Can't you see youre trodding on their dreams?

Item #3

Look, having sex-related articles is not bias, I do not see any reference for the claim that many of the individuals viewing these pages are young, and "popular pages" is ambiguous. Simply because there is material on Wikipedia that is sexually oriented does not decrease its value. Unlike Conservapedia, many of Wikipedia's articles, especially those on intellectual topics, are accurate. Conservapedia, on the other hand, barely merits being called an encyclopedia. It's ride with hypocrisy, immaturity, totalitarianism, and other ills. I am getting closer and closer to simply quitting and denouncing the site as a failure. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 13:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and what people use a site for does not indicate what it is. Many people use Conservapedia for entertainment, but does that make it a comedy site? No. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 13:04, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
There is a pro-pornography bias on Wikipedia, and this is correlated to a liberal bias. Liberals like unfettered pornography. What can I say. All liberal judges hold against restrictions on pornography. Look at who has attempted to post obscenity on this site in the past, despite being in clear violation of our rules. The very first example I saw on Wikipedia was a pornographic image that did not even belong on that particular content page. It was a contrivance, and reflected a pro-pornography bias.
I know most liberals deny they have bias, and many liberals deny there can even be such a thing as liberal bias. But, objectively, defense of pornography does correlate to liberal beliefs.--Aschlafly 13:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
"Pro-pornography bias"? Adding the word bias to anything that you're not a fan of does not make it a bias. Jrssr5 15:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
How is a judge, any judge, who recognizes that there is no way to regulate pornography without infringing upon the first amendment necessarily LiberalTM? Furthermore, if LiberalsTM are supposed to be these big mean totaliarian socialists, how does that mesh with a laissez-faire attitude to Pornography? Please explain this, I'm eager to see how these problems are reconciled, because if you cannot, I regret to inform you I'm likely to become under the impression that youre just being silly.
...Uh oh, I'm going to be banned for using the word Laissez-faire on cold blood aren't I? I'm sorry, I didnt realize it was European. I didnt mean to inflict the tongue of the unwashed foreigners on the masses like that.--RexMundane 15:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Folks, admit first that liberal bias does exist and then we can have a fruitful discussion. As long someone denies that liberal bias exists there's little point in pursuing this discussion. Thanks.--Aschlafly 15:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Sure, liberal bias exists in the world, as does a conservative bias. But having pornography does not constitute liberal bias. If it did then not having pornography is a conservative bias, which is equally frowned upon. Jrssr5 15:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
To which article are you referring, Andy? Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 15:37, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
"Concede my point already, only then will you get to hear me prove it.", yeah, how about you just pretend we do and get on with it already? Hey, pretending people agree with you should come easy to ya, right?
--RexMundane 15:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly is simply being provocative and seeking to generate interest in this site in the mold of Ann Coulter. Don't take him too seriously. That is why he put the bit about sex on the main page, to titulate. That is why he says stuff like "There is a pro-pornography bias on Wikipedia, and this is correlated to a liberal bias. " to inflame. And that is why he answer direct questions about obvious holes in his arguments with personal and generally ridiculous attacks, to deflect. The man is simply a radical, faux-christian impressario with bad manners, poor judgment and , at best, tenuous grasp of the truth -- he certainly doesn't rely on it much. My real concern is for the children apparently under his tutelage. They are in for a rude awakening if they ever extract themselves from hate-filled network of lies, half-truths and half-baked ideas about anything he doesn't like or understand. Godman 17:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Folks, I presume you have strong liberal beliefs. You are welcome to them. I'm not going to spend all day dealing with your sarcasm, rule violations, denials, etc. I am happy to debate sincere statements and you are welcome to review entries here. Support for less regulation of pornography is a liberal position. It's obvious, and I don't think anyone seriously disputes it.--Aschlafly 17:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I dispute it. Seriously. Please explain how this is a liberal position and stop just stating it as self-evident fact just because you want to bad-mouth liberals. If I said "Conservatives are pro-all-forms-of-murder. Nobody honestly disputes this" You'ld take severe issue and you'd be right to, and I should have to explain myself. Please then, explain yourself. How is "Yay Porn!" a liberal position? Less Regulation is a libertarian/conservative position I thought. Certainly is as far as gun control, how is it different when we move to media? Please provide an answer and stop suggesting that we already know it. You already think we're stupid, pretend we're stupid enough not to know this.--RexMundane 17:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
No, I don't think you're stupid and never suggested that. I am surprised that you doubt that conservatives seek to prohibit pornography and liberals want to allow it. Are you serious in not realizing that?
In the U.S., the liberal Warren Court (please don't doubt that the Warren Court was liberal) struck down laws against pornography in dozens of cases. Since then, the liberal Justices consistently rule in favor of pornography, and the conservative Justices tend to rule in favor of laws against pornography. In terms of politicians, liberals support the ACLU (which defends pornography) while conservatives oppose both.--Aschlafly 19:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not trying to impugn what I'm sure is impeccable and thoroughly cited research on your part, but can you show what these findings are and how they are specifically "in favor of pornography" and not simply, say, recognizing that theres no way to limit the first amendment rights of Larry Flynt for instance? Thats not exactly pro-porn as much as it is anti-censorship. Are you conflating the two without saying so? If you were, would that be intellectually dishonest?--RexMundane 22:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
And incidentally, I'm not so much doubting that, as groups of people, self-identified liberals are more permissive toward the existence of pornography than conservatives, but that doesn't correlate necessarily to pro-porn being a liberal viewpoint. That would be like saying that, since the majority of conservatives are white that they have an anti-black viewpoint. How, if "liberals," as we are led to understand them, want to oppressively control our lives, do they have such a blandly permissive attitude toward pornography? Isnt that inherently contradictory within your own logical construct?--RexMundane 22:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe you can explain this puzzle. Conservatives freely admit their views and sincerely defend their principles. Why do so many liberals deny they are liberal, deny basic liberal positions, and seek to pretend there is not a liberal bias?--Aschlafly 17:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Another Riddle: Conservatives fundamentally define themselves in terms of what Liberal's arent, demonizing liberals in the process. If Liberal's ceased to exist, would conservatives cease to exist too?.--RexMundane 17:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
That's not true. Here is an explanation of conservatives. It is based on morality. Demonizing liberals has nothing to do with it. Liberals demonize conservatives far more than vice versa. Compare the behavior of liberals and conservatives here, please.--Aschlafly 19:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I think this is absolutely true. On this page [8] alone, for example, we have three instances were editors were incapable of addressing or refuting proper citations by another editor, so the strategy was to attack, slander, and demonize the editor on a high profile page like Conservapedia:Abuse, rather than engage in intellectually honest debate and discussion on the appropriate Talk pages and/or seek out credible sources to refute the citations provided by the editor. RobS 00:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
"Liberals demonize conservatives far more than vice versa?" Can you name five bestselling books by any liberal authors at all that do nothing but attack conservatives? Because if not, I rather think there's at the very lease a Coulter-sized hole in your argument there, Kreskin.
For the record, I was kind of trying to parody how you just decide to define what liberalism is in terms of that which you don't agree with, in this case pornography. Unsurprisingly, you failed to catch it.--RexMundane 22:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Those are some pretty lame definitions of conservatives. I bet I could take a random poll of self-identified conservatives on the street who wouldn't agree with the majority of your definitions. I'd consider myself more conservative than liberal and I disagree with many of the items on the list. Jrssr5 23:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

If there is a bias, there is a "factual" bias, or a bias against bad science, in the mainstream.-AmesGyo! 17:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)